By Bob Slocum, North Carolina Forestry Association Executive Vice President, December 2002
While some might try to paint a different picture of the current forest planning process, the red tape and regulations incorporated into forest management on our national forests over the past 15 years is a nightmare for understaffed government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, a roadblock for all family businesses and a major tax burden on the American public. The Bush Administration is seeking a solution to this “paralysis by analysis” by announcing a new the forest planning process that will allow professional foresters to ensure that our national forests are healthy.
The red tape that has been written into the forest planning process on our national forests requires exhaustive studies and once the local forest managers complete these plans, national anti-forestry groups predictably sue them. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that it spends 40% of its budget and man-hours in court rather than on the ground evaluating our national forests. Who pays the court fees for this endless litigation? You and I. We even end up reimbursing the organizations that sue, regardless of whether they win or lose. These preservation groups have become a national conflict industry with no real interest in the forest.
The proposed revisions to the forest planning process have little to do with the forest products industry and everything to do with the health of our national forests. Western lawmakers and U.S. Forest Service personnel in the West have been imploring the federal government to put the “local element” back into forest management for years to help them combat devastating wildfires. These lawmakers argue that professional foresters need the ability to weigh local needs and goals rather than calling back to Washington for directions or heading off to district court for approval.
Some believe this red tape is beneficial, and it is if you are an environmental lawyer or anti-forestry group. It’s money in your pocket. But what about our national forests? It’s estimated that some 72 millions acres of national forestlands are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire and another 26 million acres are at risk to insect and disease infestation. Due to a lack of forest management along with fire suppression, these forests are denser, less diverse in terms of wildlife and unfortunately, unhealthier, than those Lewis and Clark once tracked though.
Local, science-based forest management is the key to the future health of our national forests - not edicts from Washington or miles of red tape that wind through courtrooms across the country. Compromise, not confrontation, is the path to be followed when considering the benefits of forest management.
Consider the recent events in South Dakota where Tom Daschle snuck in a special forest management amendment for the Black Hills to allow timber harvesting to reduce wildfire threats without the threat of lawsuits. The Daschle plan had the blessings of the Sierra Club, input from the local U.S. Forest Service and input from industry groups.
During the deliberation on this plan, Tom Troxel of the Black Hills Forest Resource Association commented how much he had in common with his counterpart at the South Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club, Sam Clauson. However, Troxel noted that there is a basic national mandate that prevents any permanent resolutions.
"The conundrum is, regardless of how things unfold locally, we're still dealing with national Sierra Club policies that oppose timber harvest on public lands," stated Troxel.
Clauson confirmed this ideological difference by reciting the ultimate goal of the Sierra Club is to end all commercial logging on public land, “but common sense has to weigh in.”
Yes, Mr. Clauson, you are correct.
The new forest planning regulations will add the long neglected element of common sense to the equation by streamlining the process. For years now, our national forests have been neglected, not protected, by cumbersome rules, courtroom lawyers, and miles of red tape. It’s time for local communities and professional forest managers to have the ability to create a future for their community without interference from national preservation groups, edicts from Washington or mandates from courtrooms.
#####