| |
 he San Diego Earth Times
published the results of a Market Strategies,
Inc. poll in its September 1998 issue. The issue at stake was logging
in the National Forests. Basically, the poll asked, Do you favor or oppose
logging in our national forests? About 69% of respondents were in opposition,
and 25% were in favor.
 These results are by no means surprising.
We live in a nation of peace and love and all things environmental (but
give me my maple furniture, fireplace, and triple-bagged groceries please).
I argue that we should resist our primal urges to turn all forests into
National Parks, and instead continue down this damned path of consumption.
Has the devil caught your ear yet? If so, read on, and I'll tell you why
we should put up with the past negligence of the Forest Service.
|
| |
To begin, let's get a feel for the organization we're dealing
with. The U.S. Forest Service administers 187 million acres of land designated
as National Forests. But not all National Forests are created equal: logging
activities are grouped into certain areas. Places like the Pacific Northwest
are churning out timber in quantities that could put even Beanie Babies
to shame, while Southern California's Cleveland National Forest offers no
logging permits for what little timber it has.
According to the Timber Sales Program
Information Reporting System (TSPIRS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) harvested
3.28 billion board feet of timber last year (1997). Timber sales provided
55,535 local community jobs and a regional income of $2 billion. $220.0
million in gross timber sale receipts were returned to the states and counties
where national forest timber had been harvested for use in benefiting local
schools and roads. The point is, logging on USFS land represents a large
income for communities. If you plan to have a tug-of-war with the USFS,
you're going to need some serious ammunition. |
| |
On the surface, the facts against the Forest Service are
compelling. The reckless clear-cutting of the 70's and 80's and the even-aged
logging of the same time period brought with it erosion, water quality degradation,
habitat destruction, and a whole host of other problems. Logging generally
entails the creation of roads into wilderness areas, a process which USFS
Chief Mike Dombeck noted earlier this year as one that, "leaves the
most lasting imprint on the landscape." "Imprint," perhaps,
with an extra serving of ecosystem fragmentation on the side. A 1997 count
of road-miles built by the USFS totalled 378,000, roughly 8 times the length
of the interstate system.[1]
To top it off, the Forest Service
timber program loses taxpayer money! A number of sources point out this
fact: a $5 million timber sale does not bring $5 million back to the Forest
Service's coffers. Sale of timber does not always cover the miscellaneous
issues surrounding a timber sale: sale preparation, administration, inventory,
reforestation, road maintenance, and other expenses. A loss might not be
terrible if it were for constructive purposes, but we as taxpayers are unwillingly
paying for the destruction of our public lands.
In terms of economics, these timber
sales (and land destruction) may not even be necessary to meet resource
demand. From 1991 to 1995, when the federal timber harvest was cut in half
by owl litigation, America's total timber production (public and private)
actually climbed by more than a billion board feed and timber companies
were somehow able to export to Asia tens of thousands of "raw,"
or unprocessed, logs and with them, the processing jobs previously held
by American workers.[2]
Have you had enough? Are you incensed?
Downright mad? You have a right to be. A number of people have decided they're
not going to put up with this poor excuse for a "Resource Management
Agency," and have proposed a solution to the problem: stop logging
altogether. Proponents of the Zero Cut Policy say our best bet is to stop
this madness, and save the environment while we still can. In the process,
they note, we can save money and still supply the timber we need. Let's
look at the reasons why this may be a little too severe an approach to take. |
| |
So far we've seen that logging on forest lands can be (1)
ecologically insensitive, (2) a monetary burden on taxpayers, and (3) unnecessary
to fulfill national timber demand. Is it possible to defend the Forest Service
from such a complete attack?
Well, before we rise up in arms to
disband the U.S. Forest Service, we should note some trends contrary to
the above comments. According to the 1997 TSPIRS report, the Forest Service
is converting its activities from commodities-based to stewardship-based
ones. Dead and dying trees count for 40 percent of timber, as opposed to
20 percent in 1989. Forty percent of all harvesting is for "Forest
Stewardship," that is, harvesting which is designed to help maintain
and restore habitats. This number is up from 24 percent in 1993, and is
forecast to exceed 50 percent next year. Also, Chief Dombeck of the Forest
Service proposed a ban on the building of new roads in roadless areas.
While the Forest Service hasn't done
enough to make us come crawling back with our hearts in our hands, we can
see a paradigm shift towards usage patterns which are more likely to be
ecologically sustainable. But a change in philosophy is only as good as
the information that it is based on. Is the Forest Service is basing its
shift on documented science, and not some black-box decision process which
precludes citizens from understanding what is shaping our forests?
A good example of their scientific
work is the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), a study designed to
evaluate the current management of the Sierra Nevadas, and suggest methods
of improving the ecological and economic "well-being" of the system.
The project team consisted of 18 scientists, 19 consultants, and 107 authors
and coauthors of reports. Public hearings were also held, so that residents'
issues could be addressed. In the end, this report addressed issues as diverse
as climate change, socioeconomic status, forest-resource use, population
growth, fire, and urban development. Such a well-versed study could get
the approval of some of the toughest skeptics.
For the moment, take it on faith
that the USFS is trying to transition to more sustainable methods of resource
use. Let's talk money. Will this venture always be a loss to taxpayers?
The costs of forest stewardship are often considered losses: much more time
and effort must go into the selection of trees to be harvested and maintenance
of the system than would be necessary in clear-cutting or even-aged logging.
It follows, then, that these activities will detract from profits generated
by commodity timber sales, and this shift to stewardship harvesting will
likely continue to make the USFS timber sales program lose money.
But we must remember that we are
receiving nonmonetary benefits (a sustainable ecosystem, for example), and
our alternatives to this loss may not be any better. If, as suggested by
Zero Cut Policy, we let private landowners meet 100 percent of the demand
for timber, we are simply displacing the destruction of public lands to
private land. Although such a course of action would preserve public lands,
it would be difficult to see how this would work towards an overall goal
of ecological stability in our nation: biology does not distinguish public
lands from private ones.
The same dilemma will be present
if we look outside of our nation to meet the demand for timber: we are likely
to import forest resources from nations which do not strictly monitor or
enforce timber production. If this occurs, we simply displace our problems
on other nations, and risk destroying global ecological stability. What's
worse is that the further this problem moves from our backyard, the more
likely we are to forget about it and the less likely we'll be to have any
control over it. A future goal should be to keep the problem in our backyard,
under our control, and find a way to make it less of a monetary drain. |
| |
If we can look past the destruction and liberties taken
with our national forests, if we can cut past the bureaucracy, I think you'll
see that what we're left with is an improved philosophy. The USFS is an
experiment in multiple-use management. We should recognize that it is an
ongoing experiment, which we have the opportunity to influence. Instead
of throwing out the idea of using our forests, let's instead look for a
way to make the U.S. Forest Service work the way we want it to. By taking
advantage of the local, regional, and national Public Involvement Processes
in the USFS, and by basing decisions on well-thought out science, we can
shape the Service into an organization that is ecologically sustainable,
economically self-sustaining, and in touch with the community within which
it exists.
Thanks to the following resources
for their wealth of information. I encourage you to check them out yourself,
and decide how to help shape our National Forests. |
