How Long will Congress pay?
By Mike Crouse
Loggers World-August 2002
Amidst all the fires,the conflict, and public policy debate over how to (or it would be IF) manage public forestlands, there is the overriding longer-term issue of congressional interest in paying. Regardless of blather to the contrary, the harsh reality is the National Forests, most of which are west of the Mississippi, are also a very long ways from the majority of the voting public.
While there is a professed interest in public forests and their health, changing public policies have changed the National Forests from a net gain to a net drain on the treasury. This, after decades of making money, the National Forests, under current accounting rules, and due to a near total shutdown of the timber sale program, cost the tax paying public money to manage...A lot more money, infact per acre, than any privately owned forest.
In the midst of shrinking federal budgets and an ever increasing list of programs to fund, one has to ask how much longer the Congress will be willing to fund the forests, most of which are located a considerable distance from their core political constituencies? Our guess, should public policy remain the same, and to change would require leadership and courage few in this congress have.
The vision required to fund, steward, care, and harvest the forests in a sustainable fashion currently is lacking. To actively manage the forests is to step squarely into the sites of the powerful, well funded, special interest group that is the eco-industry. They have proven over the past 20 years to go to any length to block any solution or compromise, which might result in active forest management. "Solutions ain't us" is their mantra. With good reason...remove the conflict; remove their cash cow.
Thus, how much longer is congress, how much longer is the voting public on the east coast, willing to fund our forest health, and willing to fund forest fires?
Our guess...10 years...unless public policy changes.
This too lends itself to the designs of the radical amongst the eco-industry. Destroy the economy, vacate the land at any cost, and fully implement their much beloved Wilderness Project with open landscapes surrounding small islands of humanity.
Balance is what is needed. Balance and the recognition our economy is dependent on a raw source of materials that in fact is the basis of creating wealth. We cannot maintain our freedom, or standard of life, by importing raw materials forever. As is stands, and as we all know, we import a substantial portion of our oil, and natural gas...the energy that our economy demands. We're steadily increasing the amount of timber we're importing as well. Good for short term profits, perhaps...but how sound is this towards our long range prosperity?