Talking Forestry to Democrats
Last month this column made the point that that
farmers and production agriculture had to do a more effective job of
communicating with Democratic leaders and expanding the political base of
production agriculture. The column then
offered some suggestions on how to link production agriculture with the larger Democratic
agenda: global warming, the price of food, global food security. See: Talking Agriculture to Democrats. http://www.agri-pulse.com/talking-agriculture-to-Democrats-Matz-123112.asp
The same can be said of forestry and the management
of our national forests. Those who rely on our national forests for jobs and
tax revenue must figure out how to more effectively make the case for forest
management and federal appropriations to a larger audience.
There are 153 national forests covering some 191
million acres in 44 states. The Forest
Service is the largest agency within the Department of Agriculture. Yet, most Americans
and many urban Democratic leaders do not appreciate the difference between our national
forest and national parks.
Communities in and near the national forests depend
on them for their economic vitality. But
proper management of the national forests is also important to the larger
cities located downstream. The national forests don’t just provide wood and
paper products; national forest provide clean water, clean air, habitat for
wildlife, and an opportunity to simply “get away.”
The basic laws governing the National Forest Service require forests to be managed for “multiple use”. Proper management of working forests requires cutting timber and thinning the annual growth. At present, we are harvesting less than 10% of the annual growth and that has been going on for many years. The level of harvest plummeted by more than 80% in the early 1990s.

This decline in harvesting timber and proper management
is one reason for the increased number of forest fires and the severity of the
fires when they occur. Wood is building
up in the forests and on the ground. In
short, the forests are overgrown, there is too much fuel on the ground and it
is dangerous. Proper management of the forests would put people back to work in
high unemployment counties but it would also reduce the risk of forest fire.
Management of each national forest is governed by an
individualized forest plan approved by USDA-Forest Service after a public
comment period. The existing forest
plans would allow the harvesting of up to 6.1 billion board-feet. Yet, last year only 2.6 billion board feet
were harvested or only 42% of the amount authorized.

The national forest timber sale program has evolved
since the controversies of the 1990s. Strong protections for wildlife, water
quality, and limits on unsightly clear-cutting have changed the way the Forest
Service manages the lands under its jurisdiction. Many local environmental
groups understand that things have changed but some national groups and urban
environmentalists (in and out of Congress) are behind the curve.
National forests that are supposed to be producing
commercial timber are not being managed which has left large swathes of many forest
overgrown and facing unprecedented threats from insects, mortality, and large
fires. The insects kill the trees which then in turn make them more susceptible
to intense wild fires.
It is not surprising that the national forests experiencing
the biggest problems with fires and insects are those forests in States with
the fewest number of sawmills and other wood consuming facilities. Increasing
the timber harvest on these forests, up to the amount authorized in the USDA-Forest
Service approved forest plans, would improve the health of the forests and
reducing that amount of money that has to be spent protecting homes and putting
our the fires.
Managing the forests, which includes cutting timber,
actually helps the environment. However, this important dynamic is not
understood outside the local community and that is the message that needs to be
shared more broadly.
In addition to improving the environment, the USDA timber program is the single most efficient federal program for generating jobs in high unemployment, rural counties. As shown in the chart below, sustainable forest management and restoration, when compared to other federal programs, is the most effective program at putting people back to work.

This year, the statute authorizing federal payments
to counties to cushion the blow from the decrease in timber harvests will have
to be reauthorized. That will provide Congress
with the opportunity to revisit the management of our national forests.
Congress should examine the Forest Service’s management dilemma, which forces them
to spend billions fighting forest fires instead of investing in proactive
forest management and restoration that will improve the health of our forests,
reduce the potential for catastrophic fires, put people back to work, and make
American forest products.
Basic reforms, which
allow the Forest Service to manage the land and provide economic benefits to
their neighbors while providing clean water and clean air to urban and
suburbanites, are both good policy and good politics. That won’t happen, however, until the advocates
for forest management broaden their political base by explaining (and
demonstrating) the benefits of such management.