Mary Angeline, writer

THE REAL LOGGING ISSUE IN OUR NATIONAL FORESTS

Prompted by the ongoing media coverage of logging in our National Forests, including the Allegheny National Forest, I would like to address this controversy. I want to present a counterpoint to the usual watered down and an oversimplified media version of the debate.

First of all, the controversy exists because the logging/clearcutting takes place in National Forests --public lands, including designated Wilderness Areas, those which most people assumed are set aside to be protected. What is rarely acknowledged is that the Forest Service itself is the perpetrator of the giveaway of our taxpayer funded public lands, not only to logging, but mining, drilling, and grazing interests as well. Perhaps there is no other agency where the public image, in this case one of ecological stewardship, has contrasted so greatly with actual deeds.

The Forest Service was created to protect forests for lumber, not forests for forests' sake. Their current guideline is The Multiple Use Act of 1960, which states: "the forest purposes shall be enhanced of recreation, timber, watershed, wildlife, fishing, and mining -- based on the most judicious use of the land." But the lion's share of land usage in the last 40 years has gone to developers. Since then, millions of acres, including Native American religious sites and Wilderness Areas, have been opened to clearcutting or extraction. Watersheds and recreational areas have been damaged, and many plant and animal species severely reduced. To accomplish this, the Forest Service has built one of the earth's most extensive road systems , with 10,000 miles of new road every year.

The Forest Service and the timber companies employ the most Orwellian of terms and tactics. Clearcutting forests, some over 1000 years old, translates into "harvesting overmature and decadent" trees. The salvage logging rider signed last year called for immediate salvage of "dead and dying trees," and "those in danger of dying." Most areas clearcut were of live green trees. This was done under the guise of protecting "forest health," which is another complex topic in itself. As a bonus, this rider exempted timber companies from environmental laws, and closed the doors on public participation of timber sales.

One of the biggest myths concerns tree replanting. Yes, the Forest Service and the timber companies do replant trees -- not the original species, but a single specie, even-aged corn row crop. This new forest is then "managed" as it grows. Competitive species are eliminated, and the crop sprayed with fertilizers and pesticides before it is "selectively cut" decades down the road. In Western forests conifers are preferred; in the Allegheny National Forest, the tree of choice is Black Cherry. Thus, our National Forests ( and many private ones as well) are transformed from diverse ecosystems into tree farms.

What's more, the trees are sold below cost to the timber companies. If the Forest Service was paid $100 for a tree valued at $1000, but spent $99 to cut the tree, it would calculate a $1 profit instead of a $900 loss. A live standing tree has no value. Ninety-five percent of all timber sales are unprofitable. In 1995 US taxpayers lost over $500 million to subsidized timber sales. (Timber sales in the Allegheny are one of the few exceptions, and logging has increased ninefold in four years. Ironically, the leading industry in the ANF is still recreation and tourism.)

Yet, the media keeps rehashing the old "Economy Vs. Ecology" slogan. According to Forest Service figures, a mere 4% or less of the country's wood products comes from our National Forests. Many more times wood products are found in our landfills. Between 1/3 and ½ of the waste stream are wood and paper products alone. (As an aside, there are annual crops that make a paper superior to wood pulp, like hemp and kenaf, without producing toxic chlorine by-products.)

If we focus on economics, then let's discuss it to the fullest. What price do we put on damaged topsoil, streams, and fisheries? What is the price of flooding and mudslides, like the ones in the Northwest last spring? Or of global warming? Let's talk about the economics of waste, of disposal vs. reusing. Why not salvage usable timber from old abandoned buildings, instead of salvage logging? Even the most basic rule of capitalism is never to liquidate assets below replacement cost.

Logging in our National Forests is an ecological tragedy and an economic scam. The Forest Service's own polls show that nationwide most people support a Zero Cut Option on public lands. We can surely make better use of that $500 million subsidy. Let's use the money to restore forests, damaged watersheds and fisheries, protect species, and especially, to create jobs. Economist Tim Hermach says: "I submit that there are thousands of times more profits to be made, wages earned, and taxes paid in the rebuilding of our forests and restoring them to their natural native condition."

References for this article came from The Native Forest Council, Eugene, OR; The Allegheny Defense Fund, Clarion, PA, and the US Forest Service.

Mary Angeline is a freelance writer and has been active in environmental issues in Pennsylvania for many years.