DEFENDING UTAH?S NATIONAL FORESTS
The
Economics
of
NATIONAL FOREST LOGGING
THE MYTHS OF FOREST ECONOMICS:
Many myths surround the economics of logging on public land. These myths hinder forest protection by creating a false sense of necessity for logging in order to safeguard the lifestyles of society. Two of the most pervasive myths are that the economies of rural communities depend on National Forest logging and that logging is necessary for forest health and wildfire suppression. However, the truth is that logging on public land has negative economic consequences and degrades the forest environment. National Forest logging contributes only 3% to the nation?s timber supply and the Forest Service actually loses over a billion dollars a year on logging; money that you and I as taxpayers lose also. Logging National Forests puts people out of work by displacing logging on private lands and by competing against producers of recycled or non-wood fiber and building materials[1].
Logging also does not improve forest health. It destroys habitat for plants and wildlife and exacerbates risk of forest fire by increasing surface dead fuels and changing the forest microclimate. Logging also destroys water quality (putting large amounts of sediment into watershed streams and lakes) and clearcut areas create the perfect conditions for erosion and flooding, resulting in landslides and destruction of property. Millions of dollars in claims against the government are generated by Forest Service logging due to death, injury and loss of property. Logging also ruins the value of National Forests in terms of their wild beauty, wilderness qualities and recreational enjoyment.
Salvage timber sale on the Dixie National Forest, Utah
RURAL COMMUNITIES DO NOT EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON NATIONAL FOREST LOGGING:
A common concern with the elimination of logging on national forests is the matter of rural community dependence on timber production. However, this has been proven to be incorrect and misleading. Even in states with the most timberland, logging and wood product employment in communities near National Forests represent a minor share of jobs and income. According the U.S. Forest Service, only 3% of jobs are tied to logging while 75% of jobs come from recreation[2]. Very little timber comes from National Forests (timber logged from National Forests dropped by 75% between 1988 and 1999) and the economies of nearby communities have already transitioned to restoration work and recreation related jobs. National Forest logging also generates high costs for these communities in terms of ?externalities? such as watershed contamination and destruction of areas that provide recreational opportunities. Beauty and recreation in National Forests are bringing far more revenue into small communities than are timber sales. This is the revenue that supports the community schools, roads and other public works.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF A NATIONAL FOREST LEFT "NATURAL"
Forests provide us with what natural resource economists call "ecosystem services." These services provided by forests worldwide are worth over 4.7 trillion dollars per year[3]. This far outshines National Forest logging profit.
These ?services? consist of the following:
Water supply, purification and flood control: The forest ecosystem produces clean water naturally. As such, watershed protection has been found to be the best and cheapest way to guarantee both quantity and quality of drinking water. It costs $1.5 billion to build a reservoir system while it costs $8 billion to build filtration facilities plus $200 million a year in operation costs[4]. National Forests supply over 530.4 million acre-feet of clean water each year to municipalities, businesses, and rural residents[5]. National Forests also provide free flood control by regulating water flow through forest structures and soils. Logging disrupts natural water flows, resulting in increased flooding and decreased water supply during dry periods.
Biological services: National Forests provide important biological services that most of us take for granted. Forest ecosystems recycle nutrients, wastes and produce soil. They play a vital role in mitigating changes in our global climate by absorbing and storing vast amounts of carbon from our atmosphere (53 million tons per year). National Forests also offer pest control and pollinating services by providing habitat for species that prey on forest and agriculture pests and for wild pollinators that are instrumental in the survival of certain crops. Forests also contain life-saving medicinal plants, including two important cancer fighting agents that have been found in trees growing on undisturbed National Forest lands.
Recreation and Tourism: By the year 2000, the Forest Service calculated that national recreation had contributed 30 times more income to the nations economy and created 38 times more jobs than logging on National Forests[6]. The socioeconomic value of healthy forests for fishing, hunting and recreation far outweigh any benefits of logging. In some national forests, recreation was estimated to add 10 times more gross annual benefit than logging. When national forests are logged, it adversely affects recreation, limiting supply of sites, destroying view areas, increasing safety risks, decreasing biodiversity and wildlife habitat; generally, taking away the beauty and wildlife that people come to the forests to enjoy.
A Safe Haven: Most importantly, National Forests provide a place for wildlife to seek refuge and pursue their own means of survival in respectful solitude. Here natural law reigns and man is but a visitor and an onlooker to the magnificent living cycle of the forest.
LOGGING DOES NOT PREVENT WILDFIRE AND DISEASE
A widespread misconception surrounding national forest logging is that by reducing trees you reduce the risk for wildfire and disease. Most fire ecologists agree that logging in National Forests only increases the risk of catastrophic fire. The slash (extra woody material left on the ground from logging) acts as fuel that feeds an emerging fire. Also, loss of trees in an area causes changes in the microclimate, making areas hotter than normal. Fires started in cutover areas and plantations are of the hottest character and once started, are almost impossible to stop[7]. In terms of disease, there has been no scientific evidence that logging has any effect on stopping insect infestations. In fact, it has been found that logging increases the stress on surrounding trees, making them more susceptible to disease, sometimes to the point that new trees won?t grow[8].
WE DON'T NEED THE WOOD
The wood product that comes from National Forests is only 3% of the U.S. wood supply. If the National Forest supply was eliminated, this small amount could easily be compensated for by decreasing the amount of wood we waste, intensive recycling, and using wood substitutes. The amount of usable wood we throw away annually is fifteen times greater than the amount of wood we get from National Forest timber. Also, ending the subsidized timber sale program would lessen competition for recycled and non-wood products.[9]
UTAH?S NATIONAL
FORESTS ? ECONOMIC FACTS
Utah's National Forests are far more valuable as places to visit than as logging areas. Every year, 17 million people spend $4 billion dollars on recreation in Utah. In Utah, jobs related to forest protection, which include recreation, tourism, ecological research, hunting and fishing outnumber logging jobs by at least 6:1. [10] In 1998, Region 4 of the U.S. Forest Service (which in includes all of Utah and portions of Idaho, Wyoming and Nevada) could only sell 29% of the timber sale volume offered in the competitive bidding process. Seventy-one percent went unsold.
In the year 2001, 2 billion board feet of timber was cut nationwide. That is equal to 400,000 logging trucks loaded with timber.
See also: Ten Good Reasons to End Logging on Public Lands
] Talberth, J., K. Moskowitz. The Economic Case Against National Forest Logging. National Forest Protection Alliance, 1999.
[2] ibid.
[3] Costanza, Robert, 1997: ?The value of the world?s ecosystem services and natural capital,? Nature, V. 387
[4] Trust for Public Lands, 1998: Protecting the Source: Executive Summary
[5] Talberth, J., K. Moskowitz. The Econ. Case Agnst. N.F. Logging. NFPA 1999 .
[6] USDA Forest Service, 1995: Forest Service Program for Forest and Rangeland Resources: A Long Term Strategic Plan, Draft 1995 RPA Program
[7] Talberth, J., K. Moskowitz. The Economic Case Against National Forest Logging. National Forest Protection Alliance, 1999.
[8] The Lands Council, 1999: Transitions: Olsen, K. Working out the bugs, V.13, n.2
[9] Talberth, J., K. Moskowitz. The Economic Case Against National Forest Logging.
[10] U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 1997: Covered employment and wages
