Forests Archives

The popular belief that a century of wildfire suppression caused a build-up of fuels in western forests that increased fire risks led Congress to pass the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003. This expensive program gives the Forest Service and USDI agencies hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce fuels.

Now a new study published by Science magazine finds that fuels were not the cause of recent large wildfires. Instead, it was changes in the weather, namely longer drier summers since the mid 1980s.

While some say that the study demonstrates some of the potential effects of global warming, the authors admit that they offer no evidence that global climate change is the cause of the changes in weather patterns (which in fact are a repetition of weather patterns in the 1930s). The real significance of the study is that it demonstrates that the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is a waste of money.

Read More »

Mark Thoma at the Environmental Economics blog points to this NYT article on a major forest conservation deal, and wonders whether the internet's effect on paper prices played a role.

At the request of the U.S. Forest Service, a federal judge has ordered environmental groups contesting a Forest Service timber sale to post a $100,000 bond in order to keep an injunction in place during appeal from his ruling that the timber sale should go forward. The Forest Service had requested a $400,000 bond. Timber groups laud the bond as a step towards reducing frivilous lawsuits, while environmentalists call the step "unprecedented."

Here is a story on the adminsitration's new rules for off-road vehicle use in national forests that appear to take a small step toward decentralization of forest management

Read More »

The Wall Street Journal reports today on conflicts between Tasmania's beekeepers and forestry companies: In Tasmanian Forests, A Battle Breaks Out Over Bees and Trees [subscription required for link to work]. Beekeepers object to logging practices that destroy a local flowering tree vital to producing a distinctive honey. Missing from the story is discussion of who owns the land in question; most forests in Tasmania are government owned. Moving the land use decision from the political marketplace to the real marketplace by privatizing the land would surely reduce the conflicts, as entrepeneurs sought to gain the profits from managing the land to allow both beekeeping and logging. The account of how property rights enhanced conservation in a similar situation in the U.S. is described in PERC Reports.

Those interested in forestry issues may wish to check out Forest Policy-Forest Practice, a relatively new group blog devoted to forestry issues.

Exactly one hundred years ago on July 1, the American people were blessed with the founding of the US Forest Service, which is honouring the 100th anniversary of its establishment on July 1, 2005. Yes, that is sarcasm you detect; stay tuned for more.

It has been more than a decade since President Clinton's controversial plan to protect the northern spotted owl went into effect. This plan drastically cut back logging on 24 million acres of the Pacific Northwest. In a retrospective, Jeff Barnard of the Associated Press (see it here at Environmental News Network) reports that logging was reduced by more than 80 percent, but the spotted owl continues to decline. One reason is that the barred owl from Canada is invading its territory. Meanwhile, the timber produced from the national forests is only 54 per cent of what was anticipated under the plan. Barnard quotes a Forest Service scientist as saying: "Many of the impacts were different than predicted."

For those who feel to guilty to cut down an evergreen for their family's Christmas tree, MSNBC reports on the Original Living Christmas Tree Company. The Oregon-based firm rents living trees. After the holidays, the trees are sold to schools, parks, and other institutions that wish to have the trees planted on their property.

Yesterday the Bush Administration finalized new regulations governing forest management. According to an official USFS release:

For the first time, an Environmental Management System (EMS) will be used during the planning process to improve performance and accountability. The rule establishes a dynamic process to account for changing forest conditions, emphasizes science and public involvement, and ultimately will help local forest managers provide future generations with healthier forests, cleaner air and water, and more abundant wildlife while sustaining a variety of forest uses.

The New York Times reports on the new rules:

Forest Service officials said the rules were intended to give local foresters more flexibility to respond to scientific advances and threats like intensifying wildfires and invasive species. They say the regulations will also speed up decisions, ending what some public and private foresters see as a legal and regulatory gridlock that has delayed forest plans for years because of litigation and requirements for time-consuming studies.

I'll defer to others on whether the specific changes will indeed produce greater flexibility and performance-based management. If so, I would think they are a welcome change. Not all environmentalists are convinced, however, believing the new rules will short-circuit "public participation" and reduce protections for wildlife.

In the NYT story I was struck by this comment from Trout Unlimited:"The new planning regulations offer little in the way of planning and nothing in the way of regulation." If that's the worst that can be said about the new rules, I would certainly be for them. All too often, environmentalist groups confuse planning requirements and regulatory stringency with actual environmental protection. In reality, regulatory rigidity and a reliance on centralized planning are often part of the environmental problem.

Wangari Maathai defends her reception of the Nobel Peace Prize for environmental work. She explains that wars are fought over natural resources, the focus of her work.

One of the most extraordinary statements from a green lobbyist I've seen in a long time comes in this BBC story about HSBC bank going "carbon neutral". Greenpeace UK's Chief Scientist says:

"But planting trees is of questionable benefit: what if there is a forest fire?"

Well, indeed. Let's get rid of the lot of them in case they release that highly dangerous carbon they have stored into the atmosphere.

Woodchippers: your environmentally friendly alternative.

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.

A couple members of the Gang of Four, which came up with the Northwest Forest Plan, comment on the Bush decision to change the Clinton roadless plan. PERC Executive Director Terry Anderson comments in the piece as well.

In addition, three of the Gang of Four argue that parts of species protection in the Northwest Forest Plan may be getting taken too far.

My op/ed commentary on the Bush forests plan follows.

Roadless Plan Wrong, Shortsighted Reform
By John Baden

The Bush administration has authored a proposal that will, for the first time, give Western governors authority to formally propose development in our wildest public lands. This overturns President Clinton's decision to set aside 40 million acres of National Forest as roadless areas.

Although the initiative was criticized as part of the Clinton administration's "War on the West," fiscal conservatives and the vast majority of Westerners applauded the decision, even those who abhorred both Clinton and his process.

Read More »

Jerry Taylor and Peter van Doren have a piece up over at National Review Online regarding the Bush decision to replace the Clinton roadless rule with a forest management plan based on input from the different state governors. As Jonathan Adler notes in his post to the Corner, the two are correct that public lands are kept out of the private marketplace and thus we can't really know the best management strategy for those lands; but they are off mark to say that devolution is not a step in the right direction.

I've written a piece on the Bush plan that I hope will be up soon at A Better Earth. I'll keep you all posted.

UPDATE: My piece on the Bush alternative to Clinton's roadless plan is now up.

The Bush Administration has decided to bring some applied federalism to the roadless rule and will let state governors decide what to do about whether national forest lands will remain roadless or not. Outside Magazine has the story. You have to register, but it's free.

Outside is also carrying a really cool day-by-day journal of the Tour de France by Lance Armstrong's coach. No registration needed for the Tour journal for some reason.

Not only that, but they also have ideas on outdoor gear to purchase for "sex in the great outdoors." I'm not kidding. Who'd have thought that there even was such a thing as outdoor performance lingerie?

State Farm Insurance is telling those in the wildland-urban interface to engage in some preemptive protection for wildfires or risk losing their insurance.