The Commons Blog: Timber Trade-Offs

Timber Trade-Offs

Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 9 August 2004 · Forests

Today's New York Times reports on how the President's timber road proposal is playing in Idaho. Of particular interest, the story notes some of the trade-offs between national and more local control of timber harvesting decisions. I particularly like the discussion of elk habitat.

Not surprisingly, the debate over the welfare of the elk tends to break along the same lines as the old logging arguments. The Bitterroot and Clearwater mountains originally combined old trees, which sheltered elk in the winter, and fire-cleared open space, where they foraged for willow, bear grass and other shrubs. Logging, mill owners say, promotes the growth of essential forage. Older trees, environmental groups say, provide essential shelter.

They're both right. To me, that's just another reason to have more local control of forestry decisions, as this will tend to result in greater diversity of land-use decisions than leaving such decision in the hands of the federal government.

TrackBack (51)

Some random, long-winded thoughts:

I have worked on the Clearwater in the area discussed in this article. When I was up there the local towns were having a hard time dealing with the sudden drop in timber supply from the forests. I don't know how well they made the transition to a new economy, though there is enough private land around to keep a mill going, so there would be a market for more federal timber.

This is one area where more road building could do a lot of damage. Many of the soils in the forest are extremely unstable and landslides are not uncommon even in the absence of roads. During the winter of '94-'95 a whole section of mountain slid into Quartz Creek, damming the stream and damaging habitat for fish, including the bull trout (a protected species). The forest service took a lot of grief for that as the slide started at a road cut on a very steep mountainside.

One of the difficulties with the new rule giving Governers more power (which I am not entirely opposed to) is the continuing erosion of decision-making ability from foresters who are obstensibly given that power. This erosion has come from many sides including wildlife folks within the agency, as well as the elaborate review and appeals process which allows anyone with an agenda and a lawyer to delay and obstruct forest management. This has lead to a loss of the esprit de corps that the forest service was once known for, as well as driving away or discouraging many competent and innovative foresters who may have once considered a carreer in the agency.

In the end, of course, the problem with the National Forests is a lack of certainty regarding what the damn things are for. At some point elected leaders are going to have to settle this issue. Foresters can manage for all sorts of goals - often several simultaniously, but if landowners (in this case the public) cannot articulate what their goals are, management is exceedingly dificult. Unfortunately, the divide among the public over what wild lands are for is a religous divide, and religous divisions are extremely hard to bridge.

Posted by: Jason at August 10, 2004 10:43 AM

wonderful work. i enjoyed read your site a lot.

online casinos

Posted by: online casinos at August 18, 2004 09:07 PM

By Author:

By Category:

By Month: