fhe Sierrq Club preserves lies

By Dean Sturz Sales Manager F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. Columbia Falls. Mt.

n N APRIL 16. a letter was sent to Restoration, Texas A&M) l,President Bush as a joint project "For ecological, biological and from the Sierra Club, National Forest moral reasons, I oppose a ban on timProtection Alliance and U.S. Public ber harvesting in National Forests.'' Interest Research Group signed by (Jack Ward Thomas, Ph'D'' wildlife over 200 scientists from acioss the biologist and former chief of the u.S. country asking him to end the practice Forest Service) of commercl-al togging on National "I know many people distrust thinForests because pa-st togging has not ning, fearing a return to the days when only degraded fisir and witatlte habitat too much harvesting was occurring in but'also*other services such as recre- National Forests, but I don't see how ation and clean water. it could happen' Far greater risks lie

I would agree that some of the log- in accepting the idea that the best way ging practicls of the past have had to protect National Forests is to set Iorri"'d"t.i-ental effecis on the envi- them aside in no-harvest reserves' I'm ronment, but I totally disagree that a wilderness fan and would favor commercial logging should end on adding appropriate lands to the National Forests. Wilderness system, but major portions

Not all scientists agree with the of the National Forest System are not Sierra Club that a ban Jn commercial suitable for Wilderness designation logging on the National Forests is the and ought to be managed for multiple Ueii po'ticy for the forests and to meet benefits, including commercial timber the needs of the American people. production." (Chadwick Oliver, Here are some statements from inter- Ph.D., forest ecologist, University of views with scientists that were pub- Washington) lished recently in Evergreen, the mag-

In letters to President Bush, James azine of the Evergreen Foundation, P. Armstrong, associate professor and that have differin{ views than those coordinator of Wood Science, Divipresented by the SGna Club letter: sion of Forestry, West Virginia Uni,.The propoged harvest ban-how- versity, wrote, "I believe you should ,, ever *itt. intended-chases ,"an treat the Sierra Club letter with the ,, uJrachievable ideal. It s.ays that if wb.. highest degree of skepticism. In my leave forests alone, the result will be a professional opinion. the letter is more natural landscape. But reality based upon false or misleading pr"r.nt, a much different piqture' Our assumptions and asks for adoption of io**t, fie bvproducts of i j,0gO yeats federal land management policy that is of Cominanie bv Natiue Ameriians, both scientifically unjustified and ,, mainlv throueir their +rse of fire. harmful ro the public interest." C.P. n"r1"it* h.u?tan in{luences-by Patrick Reid. Ph.D. president of imoosins-a harvest ban iu National Professional Forestry Schools & F;;"stel-wouta have horfe+dous Colleges and David Wm' Smith' Ph'D' impqets on native f&€sis ano species. .presidegt'. f ogiety of American Many early and mid-sucgesSinn plant Folesters,- jointly wrote, "The letter and anip,4t communities would be " rnakes allegations about conditions losi..cfuating very unnatural land_ and actions on National Forests that ,.ur*. a sienlfi"ani decline supported by credible scientific iciU#erritlv nation .: scangg. a lienificant d€cline in biolog- are not supponeo Dy creolDle screlrtrr rc i"it#ettitlv and a signlficant increase evidence' What this nation needs is a i;G tir" of wildfires, resulting in rational process to strike a prudent . runner loses io pative forests." (Tors batrance berween the costs. benefits mnqi.k *. Ph.D.. founding membero and risks of forest management. That Inteinational Society of Ecrilogical process is not well served by state- ments that lack scientific objectivity' no matter how many scientists sign on to them."

In their letter to Bush, the Sierra Club states that "onlY 470 of America's timber supply comes from National Forests" and "timber should no longer be extracted from our National Forests, especially when it comes at the expense of biological diversity and healthy ecosystems'" These statements sound nice and imply that we have the luxury to separate and set aside the National Forests as biological study and recreation areas, while obtaining the resources we need to sustain our standard of living from other sources. The focus of the Sierra Club and the signing scientists is only part of the picture, the part they believe most important, elevating their wants which unjustly call for a ban of commercial timber harvest on National Forests, above the needs of all Americans. I don't think there is anyone in this country that doesn't want clean air, clean water, abundant and diverse wildlife and plants, and places to get away from it all-and I believe we can have all of these things.

But before ever thinking about a ban on timber harvest on the National Forests here are a few facts and questions to consider. In 2001 the U.S. consumed 54.3 billion bd. ft. of softwood lumber with just shY of 3770 of that lumber being imPorted from countries all over the world. Fact 2: Over lg%o of the nation's timberland base measured in acres and 5l7o of current net volume of sawtimber (trees considered big enough to make lumber) are in our National Forests. Fact 3: Wood is the most renewable and sustainable major building material we have today. Fact 4: On all measures comparing the effects of common building materials, wood has the least impact on total energy use, greenhouse gases, air and water pollution and solid waste. Fact 5: Most Americans are not producers of wood products, but we are all consumers of wood products. Fact 6: Human survival in most of the U.S. is dependent upon some form of shelter for at least a few months a year; the most widely used product to build human shelter in the U.S. is wood.

So now looking at the bigger picture, our wants and our needs. how and wildlife ($12.6 billion), while seriously underestimating the annual contribution of timber harvest to the national economy. can we justify a ban for environmental reasons on using any of the potential renewable timber resources on our National Forests while we are already importing nearly 37Vo of our softwood lumber needs? Should we not make every reasonable attempt to live sustainably, fulfilling our needs from our own back yards instead of letting our renewable resources go to waste as we consume the resources of the rest of the world? Where will our future wood products needs be fulfilled from? Are there no endangered animals or plants there? Is biological diversity not a concern there? What measures and laws are enforced there to protect the environment?

The Sierra Club letter states: "Annually, timber produces roughly $4 billion per year while recrearion, fish and wildlife, clean water, and unroaded areas provide a combined total of $224 billion to the American economy each year." The basis of the statement comes from a report by EcoNorthwest, a consulting firm hired by the Sierra Club to clear up some myths about the real value of our National Forests. By reading the report it can be seen that EcoNorthwest conducted little independent analysis of data. They simply adjusted data upwards that first appeared in the 1995 Draft Resource Planning Assessment (RPA) of the Forest Service, a document that was seriously flawed as demonstrated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal ("Some Flaws in the Draft 1995 RPA Program").

It demonstrated that the Draft RPA enormously overestimated the contribution of recreation (by about $83 billion) on the National Forests. and fish

The most glaring and comp false claim in the EcoN is the $108 billion annual con of unroaded areas to the A economy. This figure is deri "existence value"-the val place on protecting a asset, and this value exists'Tiide dent of a person's intention asset. EcoNorthwest took from a 1997 Forest Servi goods and services derived eral land in the Columbia Ri in which it was reported that tence value" of unroaded a roughly equal to the total value ofi'hll recreation occurring on federal lands. Then citing their enormously inflated $108 billion (adjusted upward from 1995 RPA figure of $97.8 billion) contribution that recreation adds to the national economy, concluded that the remaining unroaded areas on the National Forests have an equal value, $108 billion. Not one penny of this figure was actually spent or collected by anyone. So to claim that "existence value" of unroaded areas in our National Forests provides $108 billion to the American economv each vear is a $108 billion lie.

The Sierra Club letter presents their case as if a choice has to be made either to harvest timber or promote recreation, clean water, and wildlife. In other words these amenities are incompatible with timber harvest, which is simply not true. These allegations are not supported by credible scientific evidence. Our National Forests deserve the best stewardship available, stewardship informed by the best science available, science based on sound theory, comprehensive fieldwork, exhaustive analysis and peerreviewed processes. Logging practices of today have evolved through the use of science, technology and continuing education to make timber harvest very compatible with society's desires for recreation, clean water, and fish and wildlife. Timber sales roday on our National Forests are considered, set up and completed with forest health and habitat restoration beine the prime concern and purpose of the-harvest prescription. Each sale goes through an extensive environmental assessment to determine the effects the harvest will have the various components of the forest (water quality, soil the latest in Foresl for , clean w and folests in the int$io{West is t$e ovtraccumulatioq of .vegetation, which has caused ap increasing nqmber of large, intense, uncontrollable and catastrophically destructive wildfires." We have on millions of acres of National Forest an unnaturally heavily fuel loaded unhealthy forests that will change in the furure, either by the whims of mother nature-most likely in the form of fire alone, as the Sierra Club would have, at great expense to American taxpayers in fire fighting efforts. Or we can blend modern timber harvesting, thinning and controlled bums in forest vesetation management programs that-will protect and enhance habitat, reduce the danger of catastrophic fire and encourage recovery of native plant and animal species, while also providing for our growing wood products needs.

In an Associated Press interview, Siena Club president Jennifer Ferenstein says the letter to the President is "an important warning sign." I would agree that it is a warning sign to the public that the Sierra Club has no problem using data that is outdated and proven to be seriously flawed and inaccurate, as if it were the truth, as long as it supports their position. As we try to come together in collaboration to effectively manage our public lands, it is sad to see an organization with so much power to influence the public, having to resort to such deceptive practices in asking for adoption of federal land management policy that is both scientifically and economically unjustified and harmful to the forests and the public interest.