One-sided Report On Timber Transition By Eric Muench November 30, 2013
Forest Service on-the-ground scientists have analyzed the suitability of present second growth stands to support a forest industry and have come up with conclusions at odds with this one. However Mater Ltd. has chosen to quote “Forest Service officials” (translation: politically appointed Washington DC overseers) saying their plan “supports the continued viability of the forest industry in Southeast Alaska”, which shows the insincerity of their proposal, considering that Forest Service policies of recent years have reduced that industry to the verge of non-existence. The description of the Tongass as “one of the world’s last remaining intact temperate rainforests” followed immediately by the claim that logging has “eliminated nearly all of the largest trees” is completely contradictory, as well as false. There is far more old growth in the over 13 million acres of Wilderness and other untouched permanently preserved Tongass lands than was logged in the approximately one half million acres of timber harvest of the last hundred years. What is more, buying into the false environmentalist claim that old growth is necessary to the region’s salmon economy merely highlights the politically inspired nature of the report. But the clearest evidence of the report’s carelessness is its reference to the need for the administration to “adopt policy changes” concerning “cumulative mean annual increment (CMAI) restrictions” as though these restrictions were just some bothersome bureaucrat’s niggling little afterthought. The CMAI restriction is a federal statute that cannot be swept away for an administration’s or an agency’s convenience, and it exists for a good economic reason. It means that on land designated for timber production the federal government cannot liquidate its timber assets until they have achieved their greatest average growth return. To abandon that principle would be like a farmer harvesting his corn after the stalks have grown but before the ears have ripened. Mater Ltd. would have the Forest Service harvest its trees while they were small but still growing vigorously and, together with the forest industry, suffer their lower volume and value. This would guarantee all or nearly all the timber being exported to low-value markets for pulp or biomass burning, and most likely see the end of the few remaining mills using national forest timber supply. Finally, it is worth pointing out that concerning carbon dioxide, most biologic carbon movement occurs in one of three ways: CO2 release (oxidation or respiration), CO2 storage (as in a forest of large trees), or CO2 removal (through photosynthesis into plant tissue). Old growth forests tend to be static, neither increasing nor decreasing total volume and carbon content, but serving as storage sites. In it some trees die to release CO2 while others grow in their place to take up CO2. In contrast, second growth forests takes up vast amounts of CO2 and release relatively little, so are sequestering carbon and is acting as “carbon sinks”. Therefore harvesting old growth to be replaced by second growth forest has no long term effect on CO2 levels, especially if harvested trees are made into long-life products. The Mater Ltd. report should be looked at as, at best, a one sided analysis designed to reach a preferred conclusion. Decisions about second growth transition should be put aside until an accurate and impartial assessment of a viable transition strategy can be done. Eric Muench Editor's Note: Mr. Muench's letter dated October 29, 2013, was unfortunately trapped in the spam folder and just discovered. My apologies to Mr. Muench for the delay in publishing his letter. Emailed October 29, 2013 - Published November 30, 2013
Related:
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author. Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.
|
