From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: America's National Forests: Whose Land is it Anyway?
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 08:23:25 GMT

/** gen.newsletter: 122.2 **/
** Written 12:46 pm  Aug 12, 1992 by sbrackman in cdp:gen.newsletter **
War and Peace Digest - Vol 2, No. 3 Aug.1992 

The War and Peace Digest is a bimonthly international newsletter on issues of
disarmament, government secrecy, media accountability, the nuclear threat (from
both civilian power plants and the military weapons complex), ecological
destruction, and peaceful conflict resolution through the structures of the
United Nations.  If you would like to be placed on our mailing list or
receive a copy of our new information packet on nuclear power, contact
Matthew Freedman at 32 Union Square East, New York, NY 10003-3295
(Tel: 212-777-6626).

Contributions are always welcome.
All materials may be reproduced without permission.
-----------------------
AmericaUs National Forests
Whose Land is it Anyway?

RWhen you compare the situation in the Pacific Northwest to the Amazon of
Brazil, the Northwest is much worse...it appears that much of the forest has
been literally cut to pieces.S
                        - Dr. Compton J. Tucker
                        Goddard Space Flight Center / NASA

In just twenty years, all the ancient forests on public lands may be gone.
Today, only 5% of the majestic old-growth that once blanketed North America
remain standing.  Since 1955, Oregon and Washington have lost 3.4 million acres
(or 57%), reducing the Northwestern United States to a mere patchwork of
remaining forest stands struggling to survive a growing onslaught of
clearcutting that has put these areas in more jeopardy than the Amazon basin.
Timber cuts in 1987 from Oregon and Washington alone represent a line of trucks
more than 20,000 miles long.  As the proportions of this tragedy unfold, elected
officials remain unconcerned that some of the worst deforestation occurs on
publicly owned lands.

Who looks out for the forests?  The United States Forest Service is charged
with managing the national parks in the public interest.  Unfortunately, it
seems that their revolving-door relationship with the timber industry, like that
of the links between the Pentagon and its contractors, results in a decided tilt
towards the monied interests that profit from the logging of federal lands.
According to John McCormick, head of the Forest ServiceUs whistleblower program
from 1989-92, the situation is one where the Forest Service Rhas become
comfortable with lying to the public, ignoring long-festering problems and
serving the timber industry as Government agents of environmental destruction
rather than environmental protection.S  

Not only has the management been irresponsible, but the Forest Service actually
loses money in the process of giving away federal property for private logging.
This may seem baffling to the American taxpayer, who would assume that the 1000
year old forests must command a high price on the open market.  Yet in 1991, 109
of 122 national forests lost money through below-cost timber sales in an
enterprise that cost Americans over $435 million, according to the Forest
ServiceUs own figures.

Does this subsidy amount to a net gain for American workers?  Not quite.
Though the timber industry is not allowed to export raw logs culled from
national forests, they manage to circumvent the restrictions by simply exporting
more from their private holdings and doing minimal processing on trees from
federal property before shipping them to mills in Mexico and Japan.  25% of the
1991 Northwest harvest was exported causing a net loss of 16,000 jobs at home.
The exports continue to rise due to higher prices in East Asian markets that
shut out American bidders and cause mills to close.

Though the timber industry finds it useful to blame environmentalists for job
losses, they conveniently overlook the huge gains in productivity that have
resulted in a shrinking job base despite record harvests.  From 1979 to 1987,
worker productivity due to mechanization rose by  40%.  The impact of these
gains caused employment to drop by 20% through the 1980Us while the timber cut
increased by 18%.  This trend, as predicted in a 1990 study from the General
Accounting Office, will see employment fall by 27% over the next 50 years though
the volume of timber harvested will increase by 55%.

Not only are jobs lost, but there are severe impacts to the region.  Logging in
the Northwest has hurt the commercial and recreational fishing industries which
produce more than $1 billion in personal income and 60,000 jobs.  Currently, 214
native salmon stocks are facing the risk of extinction due to higher water
temperatures (from decreased shading by streamside trees) and vast increases of
sediment (10-1000 times) from uncontrolled erosion at clearcuts. 

Ancient forests lies are the worldUs largest storehouse of carbon per acre and
act as a RsinkS against the growing accumulation of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere.  The standard method for harvesting timber is known as
TclearcuttingU, where patches of between 40-640 acres are razed to the ground
though less than 50% of the trees have commercial value.  The rest are burned in
a practice known as Tslash burningU which produces over 40% of all carbon
dioxide emissions in the Northwest.  The trees that are replanted will need 200
years to reclaim the amount of carbon released from the original cut.  New
plantations are of a single species, prone to disease and insect infestation.
The resulting tree farms can not claim the diversity of the original groves and
are poorly suited for sustaining a wide range of species. 

Reforestation efforts are not going well.  Contrary to official claims that
replanted areas have been R99% successfulS, a new report by the House Interior
Committee (RManagement of Federal Timber Resources: the Loss of AccountabilityS,
June 1992) shows that current regrowth is only 64% of the volume being cut.
The loss of healthy forests threatens the viability of all species, including
humans.  As critical sources of fresh air and water, the forests contain the
biological diversity necessary to sustain all components of the food chain and
protect a rapidly shrinking genetic pool that allows ecosystems to adjust to
changing conditions. 

Overcutting has been at issue for many years but only recently has the debate
heated up after the Northern Spotted Owl was listed as a threatened species in
1990, thereby forcing the federal government to protect its habitat.  The owl,
however, is only an Rindicator speciesS, meaning that it marks the beginning of
the end for the viability of Northwest forest ecosystems.  This is the intent of
the battle-scarred Endangered Species Act (ESA), which has borne the brunt of
outrage over the decision to place 29% of the remaining old-growth forests on
federal lands under protection from logging.  Logging companies, which own 85%
of the U.S. timber supply, are still free to cut all of their own lands.
Contrary to the hype, the ESA has not been much of a problem for developers.
Out of 34,600 projects that were evaluated over the last five years, only 23
(less than .1%) were stopped because they would put struggling animal
populations at an undue risk of extinction Q hardly a stumbling block to
economic growth.  Moreover, a poll taken this year found that 66% of registered
voters support the full reauthorization of the act and oppose any efforts to
weaken it.

The survival of the biosphere, and all that live in it, is threatened by the
loss of forest cover.  The War and Peace Foundation calls for a halt to
destructive logging on federal property and a ban of log exports.  There is no
excuse for irresponsible management of our forests.  Our children deserve
better.

** End of text from cdp:gen.newsletter **

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive