Guest opinion

Red ink logging

Regarding 'Study: National forest logging turns trees to red ink,' by Scott Sonner of The Associated Press and published in a recent newspapers:

Logging of national forests costs U.S. Taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Logging is subsidized, yes, that is true under today's recent attempts through legislation to sanitize today's overgrown, diseased and insect infested rotting western forests that are prone to catastrophic wildfire under drought conditions. Environmentalists have fought the administration and congressional efforts to get the U.S. Forest Service off the dead end but it also plays into environmentalists goals as it does put the efforts deep in "red ink" to accomplish their goal of "zero cut".

That should come as no surprise to anyone, it has been the goal of the environmental organizations and their lobbyists for more than 25 years. After all, most of the major groups espouse "zero cut" in relation to timber harvest. It is rather hypocritical as those folks enjoy all of the daily amenities of wood products.

All of the major environmental organizations have litigated most all timber management projects proposed by the U.S. Forest Service in the last 25-plus years and they have been very successful in the courts. Successful even to the extent of having the costs of their filings of litigation paid for by the U.S. Forest Service. A money maker for the non-profits.

The article refers to fuel reduction projects that accelerate the governments losses in dollars spent. That is true unless there is a product removed from the forests that has a redeemable value. A value will not be recouped especially if that product is strictly slash and debris. Commercial thinning is mentioned. It is not commercial thinning, but precommercial thinning that may have some redeeming value.

Today's National Forests timber sales require endless studies by biologists. Mountains more documentation as required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Consultation with Dept. of Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife for approval disapproval because of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The layout and sale preparation package which includes the engineering studies and preparation of the road access package. The post-sale reforestation package and the slash disposal package which normally includes the burning of slash. All related elements require tremendous time and costs.

All of this is extremely expensive to taxpayers and is met by appeals and litigation by environmental groups which delays the sale. Then most sales are revised and many are shelved and forgotten. Even wood products sales following catastrophic fires are fought relentlessly by environmentalists appeals and litigation. So is it any wonder that "logging turns trees to red ink" which again is the goal of environmental non-profit organizations.

Another extreme example of excessive costs (red ink type) to the taxpayers is the Roadless Area Inventory and study that the Forest Service has been ordered to do four times and Congress has yet failed to act upon. Congress needs to set a date that prohibits the USFS from maintaining a roadless inventory on any lands not designated wilderness by Congress. By that date all those lands not so designated will be classed as lands for multiple use purposes.

Private business entities have to turn a profit or they are soon out of business. The U.S. Forest Service appears to be different. They are forced by litigation to swim in "deeper red ink." Are there environmentalists in the U.S. Forest Service? You may answer that question for yourself. In the last 25 years, a generation of foresters and engineers has been lost and a new breed of predominately other specialists types and very few foresters are now in control or out of control. Your pick? If by some miracle the USFS were ordered to return to multiple use management, including forestry, they would be hard put to do so.

So, is it any wonder that "logging turns trees to red ink."

For anyone interested in timber sale revenue derived from the Flathead National Forest and paid to Flathead County from 1960 to 2004, can find the information and much more in the recently published document titled 'Flathead County Natural Resource Use Policy (Custom & Culture Document)." Shown is the Flathead Forest annual cut and sell program with 25 percent fund dollars returned to the county which was divided with 20 percent to schools and 80 percent to roads. The timber sell programs were based on a sustained yield basis. Sustained yield has been forgotten about for about 25 years. The U.S. Forest Service did pay much of it's way prior to 1985.

Chuck Samuelson

Bigfork