A dose of straight communication
would greatly improve forest health

By Bob Love
for Headwaters News

About a month ago Headwaters News asked me to write an op-ed piece, form a logger’s perspective, about President Bush’s forest health initiative.

I’ve been reading the headlines and listening to the sound bites in an effort to offer an informed opinion. But the details of the initiative seem to change by the day.

This isn’t surprising, since the proposal’s intentions are so nebulous. Are we trying to inhibit catastrophic fires near residential areas, preserve remnant old growth ponderosa stands by removing ladder fuels, enhance the vigor of fire-resistant tree species by thinning from below, or revive the economies of rural communities by providing resources and jobs?

From what I’ve gathered, the answer is all of the above. Although there is general agreement that these are worthy goals, their realization is doubtful, given the track record of the folks to whom we have delegated the task.

There is enough work for several lifetimes, and plenty of obstacles in our path.

A case in point is the infamous Salvage Rider of the Gingrich era, which was meant to address forest health issues by removing dead, dying or "at risk" trees. This could have provided plenty of work for independent loggers like myself, and recovered lumber from trees that are currently being sawed into firewood.

Unfortunately, the Forest Service’s liberal interpretation of "at risk" led to the Salvage Rider’s demise. Although I supported the Salvage Rider initially, I joined in the protest of several so-called salvage sales where the agency was caught with its hands in the cookie jar.

I’d like to believe that these fiascoes were due to incompetence rather than dishonesty, but my instinct tells me the Forest Service employees who set up these sales were flexing their muscles in a friendly political climate, after a decade of being restrained by clearcut-incensed citizens.

It seems that Bush and his cronies may be setting the stage for the same scenario, even rigging the game more to their liking by eliminating the appeals process.

(more)

Have an opinion? Join the discussion in this week's forum.

Or click here to view all our forums.

click here for a printer-friendly version of this column

| |

Both sides shouting,
but nobody's listening

By Daniel Berger, assistant editor
Headwaters News
Sept. 25, 2002

Taking care of the West’s forests has never been an untroubled task. The ecosystems are dynamic and complex and directly linked to the region’s economy. As our understanding of these forests increases, management doesn’t seem to be getting any easier.

Today, many forests have been devastated by wildfires, fire suppression, logging and development. In response, loggers, foresters and agency officials are becoming more diverse in their approach to management.

But some of the policy-makers who craft environmental legislation don’t seem to be adapting. As well, the economic systems in place don’t always reflect the changes in attitudes or needs.

Thus, we have policy makers, woodsmen, scientists and environmentalists at each other’s throats trying to figure out ways to restore the forests while preserving the regional economy.

Part of the problem seems to be "analysis paralysis" — decisions stuck in legislative debate or endless litigation. A plan to thin forests in northern Arizona was delayed by such gridlock when environmentalists and Forest Service officials couldn’t agree on tree size limits.

Ironically, President Bush’s Healthy Forest Initiative, which aims to trim the public comment and appeals process to speed wildfire risk reduction projects, is also stuck.

Senators can’t agree on a plan, and work is expected to be delayed until at least next spring, which could be too late.

While the Senate continues its debate, those who live and work in the woods around the West are engaged in their own debate: Is there any worth in thinning our forests?

A recent study shows that some communities in northern Arizona are ripe for a boom in small-diameter wood harvesting, but only if initial investors can be found to help fund the building of special mills designed to handle the smaller trees.

The same has been found of communities near Denver, especially in the wildland-urban interfaces that didn’t burn in this year’s fires. Thinners would make their money from homeowners looking to protect private property, as opposed to from government contracts.

In New Mexico, as many as 1,000 entrepreneurs are already at work. Small companies, many made up of former firefighters, have sprouted to help communities and landowners thin overgrown forests at risk to burn.

The companies remain small because the work is manual and labor-intensive. The salaries are decent, so long as companies get paid. In a recent High Country News article, one Forest Service official said that there are nearly 200 such companies operating around the country.

Despite support from forest officials who say thinning will help prevent catastrophic wildfires and benefit local communities, not everyone agrees.

Bush’s plan is based on the assumption that thinning won’t pay for itself, which is why he wants to open up more commercially viable lands to loggers.

A recent Forest Service study backs up his assumption; it shows that thinning just 1.6 million acres in southwest Oregon would cost $2.7 billion.

Meanwhile, some scientists don’t like Bush’s plan because they think the science is flawed. They say that thinning would actually increase the risk of fires because of the damage it would cause to forests. For the most part, thinning has been shown to stop or slow the spread of out-of-control fires.

The other issue that deepens the divide between policy makers and those who work in and care about the woods is the constant bickering, when often what each voice is asking for is the same thing.

While speaking in Oregon to announce his plan, Bush said his initiative is based on common sense management that will also aid local communities.

And in a recent guest column for Headwaters News, Matthew Koehler blasts the Bush proposal, but also says that we should instead work for a "common-sense, scientifically based approach that will protect communities from fire and put local people to work restoring our national forests."

They differ only over the details.

| |

Headwaters News is a project of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana.