Logging on our National Forests
redoak at forestmeister.com
Sun Nov 9 04:08:24 EST 1997
Robert Taylor wrote:
> Muskie wrote:
> > · The national forest timber sales program operated at a net loss to
> > taxpayers of at least $791 million in fiscal year 1996, and returned $0
> > (no receipts) to taxpayers.
> You neglect to mention that much of the western timber sale program had
> already been dismantled by FY 1996. This means that the cost of maintaining
> the remaining foresters and timber sale administrators was balanced against
> dramatically reduced sale income. As the Forest Serivce brings its
> personnel in line with its sale volume (a glacially slow process), the loss
> should diminish. The cost of administering the remaining sales is
> dramatically increased by the enormous complexity of the environmental
> review and appeals process, and the responsibility for that lies squarely on
> the shoulders of the environmental community.
Bullshit about placing the blame on the enviro community. If the USFS
hadn't done such a bad job; there would not have been such an uproar
over their bad work and there wouldn't be such an elaborate review
> > · We don't need to log national forests for our timber supply, given the
> > fact that the timber cut annually from national forests nationwide now
> > comprises only 3.9% of this nation's total annual wood consumption, and
> > less than 5% of the sawtimber used for construction.
> It comprises 3.9% because of dramatic cuts that have been made in the last
> 10 years. The gap between production and consumption in the U.S. has been
> made up by a surge in cutting on private lands and by imports from Canada.
> These cannot continue indefinitely.
Private forest lands in America can indeed carry the burdon of producing
what's needed because the vast majority of private land in America is
> > · The Forest Service's own nationwide poll found that most Americans
> > oppose commodity production, including timber sales, on national
> > forests.
> Most Americans also do not have a clue where wood and paper come from. Do
> they embrace a trebling in the price of wood products too?
That's nuts. It may go up but it won't triple. There is so much
potential on private land that the price will stabilize without going up
> > · Logging on national forests INCREASES the risk of forest fires more
> > than any other human activity.
> Actually, the greatest contributor to the risk of forest fires is a century
> of fire suppression practices and the resultant overgrowth of small fuels.
> The second is people with matches.
And there's a lot more matches with the forests crisscrossed by log
roads. Backpackers don't burn down the forests because they're out there
on foot; they don't want to be running from the flames. <G>
I have added bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry to the groups in the
"The ONLY forester's web page in the otherwise sophisticated state of
More information about the Ag-forst