That's because the companies don't need to report their actual costs for building the roads, but are reimbursed according to the Forest Service's cost estimates. But environmentalists charge that logging roads erode and damage the very wilderness that campers and fishermen seek. The forest industry insists that the road credit program does not constitute corporate welfare. A Price Waterhouse study of the program concluded that it really wasn't a subsidy since companies, if forced to pay for the roads they build, would end up paying the government less for the timber they purchased, at a reduced price equal to the amount they received in road credits. But the industry does care, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Environmental critics fault the program for other reasons.
They charge that the government, by offering to pay for the construction of roads, has encouraged the building of too many roads, and roads in remote areas, where otherwise it would not be cost-effective to cut down trees. Georgia-Pacific may have been stymied in that effort, but timber interests racked up an even more impressive victory during the 104th Congress. Although touted as an effort to prevent forest fires, the salvage timber provision reportedly was worded to industry specifications and ended up applying not only to diseased and fallen trees but to scores of healthy trees as well, including those in old-growth forests. All these roads have brought substantial damage to the environment, critics say. Roads disturb wildlife.