Logging on National Forests

“Wednesday, March 7, 2001



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Milstein of The Oregonian staff
Logging in national forests is losing more public money than ever before while producing less lumber than it has in decades, according to a long-overdue report from the U.S. Forest Service.

The dual decline will likely continue as the Forest Service shifts away from logging large, valuable trees such as the old-growth timber staunchly defended by conservation groups and toward thinning smaller, fire-prone timber that carries less controversy but fetches a lower price.

"If we're going to deal with the forest health crisis and the buildup of fuels, we're going to have to invest money in it," said Chris West of the American Forest Resources Council in Portland. "It's either pay for forest management, or pay for firefighters."

National forests nationwide lost $126 million on logging in fiscal 1998, up from $116 in losses the year before, mainly because forest officials spent more money building roads and planning timber sales than they collected for the timber they sold. The figures are included in a new Forest Service report for fiscal 1998, released more than two years late because the agency has spent the years since revising its accounting procedures.

Watchdog groups chastised the agency for waiting so long to report its losses.

"If it were you or I, the IRS would have been knocking at our door a long time ago," said Jonathan Oppenheimer of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which had pressured the Forest Service to release the information.

Forest Service budget crunchers are working to compile figures from more recent years, but agency spokesman Joe Walsh did not know when they would be available.

The deepening loss in 1998 marks a reversal from 1994, when logging in national forests had earned a net profit of $122 million, according to Forest Service figures.

The earnings turned into losses when logging collapsed in the Northwest due to protections for wildlife such as the northern spotted owl, depressing federal harvests nationally from about 4.8 billion board feet to 1.2 billion board feet over the same five years. With less wood to cut, the cost of harvesting each board foot escalated until it outweighed the market value of the wood itself.

A current slump in the market price of lumber will make it even tougher for federal logging to turn a profit, especially as it increasingly focuses on thinning smaller trees of more marginal value to reduce the danger of wildfires throughout the West.

According to the report for 1998, the Forest Service region including California lost the most money -- $33 million -- followed by the Northwest region, which recorded $25 million in losses.

Only timber sales in the eastern and southern states, where trees generally grow thicker and faster than in the West, did not lose money.

Federal officials concede logging in national forests costs taxpayers. But they say it more than pays for itself in terms of better forest health, reduced danger of wildfires, improved wildlife habitat, local jobs and other benefits. Indeed, they say the federal timber program should no longer be judged on how many dollars or board feet of timber it produces, but on the improved conditions it leaves behind. And they say they are designing new accounting methods to reflect that.

The bulk of the 1998 losses -- about $111 million -- came from "stewardship logging," or cutting to reduce wildfire hazards, remove diseased trees or improve wildlife habitat in the long run.

The report cites the Tower Timber Sale in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest of southern Washington as an example. The sale thinned young Douglas fir trees growing in dense plantations. While the sale did not make money, it produced 1.3 million board feet of wood and will speed the growth of the remaining trees into the larger, mature timber preferred by wildlife such as the northern spotted owl.

While conservation groups blame the federal logging losses on practices that took the most valuable trees first and left the rest until now, industry groups fault the Clinton administration for not giving economics a larger role in forest management.

"State, tribal and private entities can all earn a return, and the Forest Service used to before Clinton-Gore got in the game," West said.

Watchdog groups such as Oppenheimer's agree that continued stewardship logging may be necessary, especially to reduce fire hazards in overcrowded forests. But they say the Forest Service too often plans such logging around the most valuable timber, not the timber that most needs it.

"Trying to safeguard communities and reduce fire danger is definitely going to cost money," Oppenheimer said. "But it needs to be spent wisely."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can reach Michael Milstein at 503-294-7689 or by e-mail at michaelmilstein@news.oregonian.com.”

“All the more reason to ban logging in old growth forests.”

“The US government is the largest lumber dealer in the world.”

“"Ban logging in old growth forests"

That is the most ignorant statement I have heard. Must be coming from someone who knows nothing about forestry and forest management.

I just looked at your profile, now I understand your ignorant statement.”

“Chief, I read your comments about burning more gas and oil so you could get another six-figure bonus.

Now I understand your ignorant statment and lack of sense regarding conservation......

Burn it now, cut it now and take the profit before some other greedy sack takes it.

What to when ALL the old grown timber is gone???
Who cares, let the next gereration deal with that.”

“You obviously don't know about forest managment either. I have lived near forests all of my life (Minnesota, Colorado, and Wyoming). I have seen forests that were managed (logging allowed) and not managed (no logging allowed). In the forests where there was proper management and the trees were allowed to be logged and thinned, there were fewer forest fires and less loss of timber. In the forests where logging was allowed, there was also little or no loss due to beetle kill.

Every year there is less federal forests that are allowed to be timbered, thanks to the liberal idiots. Every year there are more and more forest fires and loss of our property.

If you think last year was bad for fires, wait until this summer. And thanks to Clintons' roadless initiative, the fires will be even more difficult to fight and therefore more costly, to all of us.”

“winddragon, so you want us to contact this man to say continue to log or to stop logging? Your story gave both sides of the story so I can't figure out which side you are on.

I saw a truck with a sign on it saying "log Bainbridge", which is a small heavily treed island with houses. I asked my neighbor why a person would put that on his truck. He said because we have to spend our money getting trees from Canada since we don't log enough of our own. He said it's best to remove diseased trees before they are no good to harvest. He said new trees will be replanted and will take away the scar that they left.

I don't feel I have enough information to come to a conclusion.”

“Makes you wonder how these trees managed to grow for hundreds of thousands of years without proper management. Thank God there are humans now. I don't think nature could have survived one more season without us and our manegement.”

“Thanks for the idiot remark, Chiefie. So you LIVED near forests and you've got it all figured out in simple terms.
As usual its those stupid or evil liberals who are fudgin' it up for the smart guys like you.

I do know a thing or two about forest management by way of my brother, who studied the subject at WVU.

During the '80s the Forest Serive upped the take on Natl Forest lands to please the industry.
They simply took ALL they could whether or not the domestic market could bear it or not.

I've seen the results of that policy on the Olympic Peninsula in terms of BOTH stipping the land AND loss of jobs. I was there in 1980 and 2000. Twenty years ago there were many trucks with old-growth logs on board, last year there were NONE. They are GONE!

The timber industry cares not for the jobs of their workers OR the environment-----only for profits.
They searched for markets in which to sell the over-harvest in the '80s.
They sold whole logs to Asia thus depriving the US mill-workers, whom they claim to love, of work.

I've seen the wreckage of un-regulated timber cutting in what is now the Monongahela Natl Forest in WVa.
What were once lush high plateau old-growth alpine forests are now open and rocky tops with scattered spruce. The top soil is now in the lower Potomac and the Ohio and the Mississippi.
They are some of my favorite places to hike.

The bark beetles and spruce bud worms and other "pests" are the food that sustains migratory song birds, who by the way are threatened by environmental slobs with your attitude of, "Take it now before some other greedy bastard get's it first".

The National Forests belong to all of US, not just those who live near to them.

sincerely, Liberalus Idiotus”

“Sorry Cheif to see that you feel that way, though I feel I have to correct your misconceptions,your assumption on the wildfire problem is correct, but the reason for the problem began in the early 60's in the change in the management of the forest by the blm, from selective cutting to clear cutting, this was brought on by the timber interests, and politicians from both sides of the isle.
pull your head out and get it straight dude”

“If I may say something. Both sides are responsible for the current problems. The logging companies are not virgins and total innocents, but then the conservations aren't all cooperation and seeking for a middle of the road or a win/win solution.

I cry everytime I go by a forest that was not allowed to be logged but the beetles and other bugs got into it and now all the trees are dead and brown. Not a pretty site.

On the other hand when you arrive at a clear cut and there is great openings in the forest it isn't real pretty either.

What really hurts are those 3 and 4 generations of families who has worked the forests and now have to go somewhere else because there is simpley no work for them.

Dollars from tourists do not make up for money that was made off natural resources.

Idaho is indeed in the middle of change. Our mines are closing, our forests are being locked up or burned and the farmers are struggling. Believe me when I say the tourist dollar does not recover what we have lost from our natural resources.

Another thought, lawyers get rich but nobody else makes it when the forest serivice has to spend a chunk of their money to defend lawsuits filed by envoironmentalist wanting to lock everything up. Well the forest doesn't spend what it used to because they have rolled over and now we have to fight wilderness and roadless areas.

I come down on the side of logging, within reason and build more roads.”

“FACT: Only a small percentage of the timber harvest is done on public lands. Banning logging on public lands will not affect the timber industry.

FACT: There is less than 2% roadless areas left, but the timber industry wants that last 2% really badly.

FACT: The majority of forest fires are caused by logging operations. Including the fires last year.

FACT: Thinning a forest exposes many more trees to blowdown potential because the windblock these trees enjoyed is now gone and they face the full brunt of wind storms.

FACT: Recent economic study shows that local communities receive greater encomic benefit from "eco-tourism" than from logging. Continue logging looses money to these communities as "eco-tourism" declines.

FACT: According to recent articles showing that the Forest Service is showing a loss of Taxpayer money, and the FACT that taxpayers are paying these timber companies to cut their land, and the FACT that the Forest Service in the NW charges everyone $30/year to use public lands, one would think the taxpayers are getting screwed about 4 times in this deal.”

“Funny how people believe "management" is key to the survival of a forrest. Or how fire is "distructive". Forces such as fire, disease, insects, and droughts have been in forrests for Millons of years. Isn't it amazing that these trees are still around without humans manageing them. I think the real question is how badly do we need the timber and if the environmental cost is worth the $$$.”

“Well said kdp. I certainly don't agree with irresponsible logging (clear cutting) and on the same note, I don't condone the irresponsible drilling and producing of our country's hydrocarbon resources.

I do, however, think there can and should be a balance between raping/pilaging of the lands and responsible management of the lands.

I personally believe that logging should be allowed in places like Yellowstone Park. If you look at the forests in the park, they are extremely congested with trees and the amount of dead trees, both standing and on the ground, is tremendous. The fuel buildup is growing extremely fast. With the lack of snow this past winter, this summer is going to be one of the driest in years (at least in the west). The potential for wildfires is going to be worse than that of 1988 (Yellowstone Fires).”

“Another thing I forget to mention in my last message... as ThinAir says, fires are good for a forest. They put nutrients back into the ground. Fallen logs serve as "nurse logs" for new trees. If you remove the timber, thin it, clear cut it, or whatever, you are preventing these trees from decaying or burning during a forest's natural life cycle and thereby preventing these nutrients from going back into the soil.”

“Yes, fire and bugs are good....to a point.”

“bugs are icky!”

“Specially when they get into your beer.”

“damned straight!”

“That's why I drink bourbon, the bugs hate that sh!t.”

“Well gotta go and join my tree sitting friends.”

“ThinAir, I was gonna mention the fact that these forests have survived without human intervention for millions of years.

The Pacific Northwest has some very nice beers, by the way!
~@%^>

I trekked through the Olympic NP last August with one of my boys.
We saw millions of "money trees" and quite a few that were lying down and "going to waste".
We hiked through a burn area too.
I say we should leave that forest untouched.
A lot of those trees are hundreds of years old and well worth preserving.

We're going back next year!”