Walking on a small trail through a canopy of white oak and other mixed hardwoods I soon came to an overlook, a small rock overhang from which I could see the gently rolling canvas of green for miles. The Mark Twain National Forest. As I turned my head however, the canvas of green became more like a patchwork quilt. One square mile of forest, another square mile of nothing except stumps and slash, the waste products of a logging clear-cut. The loggers had taken what they needed and left, allowing nature to take over where they left off, to start again from nothing.
As I walked down the hill from my perch I noticed the roads which were made of dirt and were marked with deep ruts from the heavy machinery that was necessary to harvest the forest of it's lumber. Quickly put together with little or no regard to the problems of erosion or ground water runoff, these roads would be a permanent addition to the forest. Many of the trails I used to travel through the forest were once logging roads, over one hundred years ago. I arrived at the sight of the clear-cut. What awaited me I will never forget. A desert of stumps and waste wood, the ugliest sight I have ever seen.
This was one of my experiences with the use of clear cutting as a tool to extract the wood of the forests of southern Missouri. This region is not alone in its plight. The United States National Forest system is made up of more than 191 million acres, or more than one quarter of forest land in the U.S. (Internet 5.1.95). An extremely large portion of this land is deemed as public, which means it belongs to United States taxpayers. In the period before World War II most of the demands for lumber were fulfilled through the use of private land, which was more accessible and possessed higher quality groups, also known as stands, of trees. But since World War II, the primary goal of rangers and forest managers dubbed "timber beasts" has been to get national forest timber cut, sold and hauled out as quickly as possible (Drablle) There are many problems with this view on forest management. Timber that is needed to support the demand for high quality lumber is no longer easily accessible. Roads must be built to get to the high quality stands, if they even exist. The timber is then cut and removed leaving large empty voids where once majestic beings stood.
In the 1960s the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act gave the Forest Service discretion over the flow of all the benefits of the national forests. Along with the Wilderness Act of 1964, however, the Forest Service was mandated to use the national forests as a multi-purpose area, with uses other than but not excluding timber-harvesting. The Forest Service then has "mouthed the formula of multiple-use while, in reality, favored the use of timber-harvesting." (Drabelle) In 1976 The National Forest Management Act was implemented. It is this act that allows critics of the Forest Service to have an extremely valid argument. Provision 6(k) of the Act implements the formulation of management plans before land that is deemed economically or physically unsuitable for profitable timber investments is used. In a nutshell, it prohibits uneconomic logging by laying a supposed framework of economic checks and balances before any harvesting can take place. The government, however has not lived up to its promise and is logging forests for a loss, an uneconomic, and therefore illegal, use of land.
My argument stems out of this uneconomic use. The United States Forest Service should not allow the overuse of public lands for the purpose of logging because of environmental, as well as economic losses. The government should add new acts or inforce old ones to make the Forest Service adhere to the policies of multiple use and forest conservation. Also, several issues stem out of the policies of the Forest Service when dealing with environmental matters. Without a change in policy, the U.S. government is threatening the future of these public lands not only for economic gains but also as natural areas set aside for nature to run its natural course.
Use of public land can be defined as the act of disturbing the natural setting of the land. Two things must be clarified in this statement. One, what is public land? And two, what would qualify as a disturbance of the land? Public land for the sake of the argument in question will be defined as lands belonging to the and being managed by the government of the United States which are set aside as belonging to the people of the U.S. These lands include state and national parks as well as state and national forests and wild areas. To clarify disturbance of this land, this could include not only the harvesting of lumber, but also the construction of roads as well as the destruction of the fragile natural forest ecosystems. Now that we have dealt with the clarification of terminology, it is possible to take a closer look at specific issues.
The environmental issue. There are several environmental issues which must be dealt with when considering the use of public lands. These include, but are not limited to deforestation due to roads, as well as the extraction of the lumber itself. The removal of habitat of native species of animals as well as erosion as losses in soil quality. After viewing all the problem it is very obvious that there is a need to reduce the use of the forests in the production of lumber.
Clear cutting is the preferred method of lumber-harvesting. In the earliest days of Americas development clear cutting was the favored form of forest removal and was used to clear land for farming, roads and growing towns. As time progressed clear cutting was conducted for the main purpose of extracting wood rather than land. This extraction was carried out for economic gain and loggers cared little for the land or the forests. A clear-cut refers to the removal of an entire stand of trees in one cut. This would mean that no trees would be left standing in a particular area. The result is a desert of stumps and slash, the branches and other parts of the tree which are deemed non-profitable. This desert is deemed valuable by the Forest Service because of the areas ability to regenerate to original size all at the same time. This then allows the loggers to once again come and harvest the trees, with little loss in already low or non-existent profits (Horwitz).
There are options available for the harvesting of lumber other than clear cutting. However, they tend to cost more, and in a world where a budget runs everything, they are for the most part looked down upon. These methods include patch cutting and selective cutting. Patch cutting is a miniature clear-cut which is limited to an area ranging from one to five square acres. These squares are then spaced out in a checkerboard like pattern. This method is still harmful to the environment and to the over all appearance of the forest, but it is still much better than a clear-cut. Selective cutting is the best method to use in the extraction of lumber from the forest from an environmental standpoint. However, it is the most expensive method of lumber removal and is rarely used. Selective cutting involves the harvesting of only specific, older-growth trees, which are deemed as the most valuable. This method leaves younger trees to replace the harvested ones, thereby allowing the environment to remain, for the most part, the same. Only when economic issues do not run the government will the use of clear cutting be replaced by other methods of lumber-harvesting.
The environmental issue is a problem, but the dilemma of the economic downfall created by the use of National Forests is an even bigger danger. We are selling our forests at a loss. When the United States government designed Forest Service, the accounts were created to compare revenues and costs of operations over time. But these accounts did not take into consideration how long a forest takes to regenerate. Costs for previous years were not accumulated with interest, but rather taken for a loss. (Repetto) It is these losses, over 85 million dollars per year (Repetto), which are causing the U.S. Forest Service to have to turn away from a multi-use philosophy and to improper logging methods. Without a change in action, the U.S. Government faces a very large problem, not only will they be loosing money, but soon all their lumber will be gone.
A person may ask why hasn't anything been done about this problem? The answer is very simple the U.S. government is unwilling to invest the time and effort in finding other solutions to the problem. Perhaps the government thinks it would just be easier to let the logging companies continue to take wood out of public lands, while continuing to raise taxes to pay for the losses this position creates.
The government looks upon the use of national and state public lands as areas for lumber harvesting. In the governments opinion, this use is both beneficial by creating income as well as helping the environment. A closer look at these "beneficial" effects will show otherwise.
Government records will show that the Forest Service created a profit over the past few years. However, it is the policy of the Forest Service to understate the true costs and exaggerate the returns from lumber harvesting. An example of understating expenses could be the Forest Service's policy not claim all the cost of building roads to harvest the trees as an expense. The Forest Service's budget goes to the building of bridges, road surface, and culverts. However, the Forest Service does not include road base, what is laid down before the surface of the road is placed on top as an expense. This road base equates to over 193 million dollars a year, all of which are not included as an expense (Internet 5.1.95). Exaggerating returns can also be seen in the Forest Service. The Forest Service has been accused of exaggerating returns from logging operations by as much as 200% (Internet 5.1.95). Perhaps we should more closely regulate these figures.
The environmental benefits claimed by the government include things such as the creation of new habitat and feeding areas as well as the introduction of new and old plant species into the environment, thereby creating a more diverse ecosystem (Booth). These ideas are good ones, however, if we did not create these deserts of stumps we would not have to worry about a more diverse ecosystem. Perhaps we should allow nature to run it's own course. After all, the Earth did fine before humans were around to start influencing it.
There are many possible solutions to the problem of excessive, uneconomic lumber harvesting. These solutions could and should include the implementation of new laws which will clarify and make the Forest Service adhere to the Provisions of the National Forest Management Act. With these laws implemented it would allow the government to better manage the woodlands which we still have.
Other solutions could be to only allow the harvesting of wood on private lands. This would do away with the unnecessary expenses of taking care of public lands. It might also create a sense of dignity in the logging industry by allowing logging companies to possess and therefore take care of their own land.
The debate over what should be done with public lands will continue on into the next century. All we can do is realize that there is a problem, and even if it is in a small way, try to help. Plant a tree, recycle a newspaper, every little bit helps. We should allow future generations to enjoy what wilderness we have left, because if we do not we will be lost in a world of nothing but cities, unable to escape. Even the acting Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas states, "above all, we have to remember that these lands have an economic and ecological value as intact ecosystems that is indefinitely greater than their value as timber producers." (Drabelle) I think perhaps he is right. It is up to us to realize, and then act upon the problem in our own, forested, backyard.