August 14, 1999 Missoulian article: Timber companies succeed where government failed. By LINDA E. PLA'I'I'S

Do timber companies like Weyerhaeuser and International Paper manage forests better than the U.S. Forest Service? The answer is yes - in many cases. That may come as a surprise to some and an affront to others. But howls of horrified protest won't change the facts.

According to a new report, "Forests: Do We Get What We Pay For?" Americans are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year for forest stewardship and in return the Forest Service has delivered 39 million acres of national forest at risk to catastrophic wildfire and another 6 million acres of timber dead and dying from insect infestation.

CAG Comment

Ripping out roads, closing trails and allowing them to return to a natural state, banning  ATV's of all descriptions, [as reported on television news]   may not be the answer to better stewardship of the land by federal government agencies that have been captured by environmental interest groups, such as Earth Share, Friends of the Bitterroot [Not to be confused with Friends of the Bitterroots], The National Audubon Society, Serria Club, National Wildlife Federation and others.

The present administration has made environmental groups immune to lawsuits no matter what damage they do to public lands.

Kathleen Marquardt spotted the hypocrisy and wrote about it in RETURN TO EDEN -- OR TICKET TO HELL!

End CAG Comments

Meanwhile, many of our industrial forests are green and vigorous, earning healthy profits from timber production and also supporting wildlife and recreational activities. Although the environmental rhetoric would have us believe that logging and ecological health are incompatible, Holly Lippke Fretwell of the Political Economy Research Center (PERC) says "that timber companies", as well as other private owners such as The Nature Conservancy, have proved otherwise.

• On its lands in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas, International Paper Co. has changed its timber harvesting practices to create wildlife corridors and protect riparian areas. The company's incentive was substantial profits derived from a booming recreation program. It offers hiking, camping and fishing for a fee and leases land to hunting clubs.
• In Washington, Weyerhaeuser has restored a 68,000-acre tree farm that was destroyed by the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980. The company salvaged enough timber to build 85,000 homes, cleaned the debris from the streams, and replanted Douglas and noble fir, The trees are now 45 feet high, and the stream is habitat for Coho salmon, introduced by the company. Returning valuable forest land to productivity was the company's incentive and the restoration of forest health was one of the benefits.
• In North Carolina, The Nature Conservancy manages its Washo Reserve to create habitat for the endangered red-cockadcd woodpecker. Prescribed burns along with timber thinning and harvest encourage the older stands of long leaf pines preferred by the woodpecker, and revenues from the harvest help support the reserve.

For years the Forest Service has been immobilized by regulations, politics and budgets controlled by Congress. despite the best available science, sometimes emanating from the Forest Service's own researchers, our national forests are in appallingly poor health. Dense stands of trees compete for moisture and nutrients making them vulnerable to disease, while shade-tolerant undergrowth covers the forest floor, forcing out the grasses and shrubs that are essential forage for wildlife.

CAG Comment

Here in lies the falacy in "Save everything and use nothing."

End CAG Comment

Critical issues of forest health that are dealt with immediately on private forest land can take years to address on national forests because of the regulatory process. For example, in the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon, it took the Forest Service seven years to respond to an infestation of western spruce bud worm. As the process dragged on the budworm spread unheeded resulting in six million acres of dead  and dying trees.

Boise Cascade Corp. had a different response to the same infestation. On lands adjacent to the damaged federal forests, the company owns a robust forest of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Actively managing its timber for resistance to insects and disease, the company has protected the high commercial value of the timber as well as the health of the forest.

A similar debacle is taking shape in Idaho this summer. Douglas fir beetles are spreading in the national forest near Coeur d'A!ene and forest managers have declared an emergency. They asked permission to begin timber cutting immediately without the usual waiting period for public comment and appeals. The request triggered a fusillade of lawsuits. The Forest Service wants to stop the spread of the beetle, salvage the infested trees - enough wood to build 17,000 homes - and prevent the dangerous buildup of fuel on the forest floor. Citizens and environmental groups filing lawsuits want to talk it over. Forest management by consensus does not produce healthy forests.

Forest Service Chief  Mike Dombeck says he has an answer to the problems on our national forests. He intends to focus on watershed protection and. ecosystem health rather than timber production. Surely the Chief knows that he can pacify some vocal Forest Service critics with this shift in emphasis, but just as surely he knows that timber' harvesting as well as thinning and prescribed burns are critical to forest health.

Dombeck's new vision is not going to restore the health of our forests. Instead, we need to free the Forest Service from burdensome regulations and force it to pay its own costs - just like a private company. These changes could go a long way toward creating healthy forests with habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities, and sustainable timber production.

Linda Plaits is an editor with the Bozeman-based Political Economy Research Center. Forests: Do We Get What We Pay For?" can be ordered at "http://www.perc.org."

 RETURN