The issue of "below cost timber sales" is a completely different subject. I don't support the idea, except in the short run when it is necessary to maintain the skills and infrastructure required for forest management.
I can tell you this: At one time my agency returned a profit to the federal treasury, but the paralysis insisted on by environmentalists CREATED "below cost" sales. In time they became more and more common and finally became the rule rather than the exception.
I don't know anybody who sits in trees to protest forestry practices personally, but I'm quite aware of one particular instance that ended in tragedy: I was given one year in which to formulate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a particular timber sale proposal.
I worked on it for half a year and had many analyses underway to protect environmental values that were in place, including a primary salmon stream that also included a fish hatchery. I had the support of the hatchery manager, a local artist lady who had camped as a child right in the middle of this area, a fellow who was keenly interested in a particular sensitive plant that was common in the area, and public involvement was moving along smoothly.
I moved away before completing the EIS owing to a professional advancement. FIVE YEARS LATER, the proposed EIS under different leadership was still being contested by environmentalists. A couple of years after that, the EIS was finally completed and passed all the requirements by law, but by then it was bound up by the accumulated effects of analysis paralysis. I suspect it had gone below cost long before.
The timber sale got underway, but was impeded by organized protesters who didn't have a clue but thought it was cool to mess with the final result of SEVEN YEARS of analysis. They threw up road blocks and did everything they could to stop the lawful progress of that timber sale.
One young woman felt compelled to hoist herself into one of the the trees in the area and camped there for more than a few days.
Ultimately, she fell out of the tree to her death.
I thought it was the most senseless tragedy that took place during my entire career, including the logger that we packed out of the woods because he was killed by a 'wildlife' tree that fell on him.
The NW Forest Plan had little to do with the good forest practices that I implemented. I was out of the field by the time it was enacted.
If you want to support true conservation, get behind The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They put their money where their mouth is, and build wildlife habitat by buying it or trading other lands that have a higher value for other uses for wildlife lands.
I support the Nature Conservancy as well, and know personally of many fine projects they have a hand in. I don't like them as well as the RMEF because they hold a bias against hunting. Hunters and sportsmen have a much longer and more effective conservation tradition than any 'environmentalist' organization you can name.
These two organizations put their money where their mouth is. They compete dollar for dollar with forest industry for the land that they are concerned with.
I have strong feelings about this, but I do not wish to debate it any more. |
