Preservationists Only Compounding A Tragedy

It’s been more than a year since the embers from Washington state’s raging 1994 forest fires finally cooled. Now, as we begin to hear about salvage timber sales being offered but not bid on, we should consider some of the reasons.

For one thing, when a salvage sale is offered there inevitably will be cries of rape and pillage in the forest. Sure to follow are the appeals. The appeals on salvage logging are, for the most part, only a stalling tactic.

The preservationists who file the appeals do not expect to win them. At this point, in fact, they are losing just about every one.

However, if the appeal can result in a court injunction against removal of the material for a year or so, the timber often deteriorates to the point where it is not practical for a timber company to bid on it. In those cases, therefore, even when the preservationists lose, they win.

Another fact to consider is that most of the sales require a large percentage of the salvage timber to be logged by helicopter. This is just about the most expensive method of logging there is, but the logging is being done this way to satisfy the preservationists’ demands for more and more restrictions.

I’m all for logging with sensible rules, but listen to the complaints about “below-cost sales.” The preservationists get everything they want, then complain about the price.

In the past, we needed rules and we got them. The salvage bill is not going to do away with the rules and any person who says it circumvents the law is either ignorant of the process or is simply not being honest. This is not “logging without laws”; this is logging without lawsuits.

As long as the required process of doing an environmental analysis, a biological evaluation and the required consultation period takes place, there is no call for these sales to all end up in court - while the timber rots on the ground.

There is also the well-known fact that lumber prices have their ups and downs. At present, the prices are down, possibly because many people, like Sierra Club staffer Bill Arthur, sold their timber when the prices were high and glutted the market. I sure don’t have a problem with making money, but the hypocrisy of some of these people never fails to puzzle me.

In any case, if the preservationists wanted to put their money where their mouth is, would they be willing to pay more for lumber from the trees that are logged by helicopter? The chances are the answer is no.

The fact is, our self-appointed caretakers of the forest are outsmarting themselves. Take, for example, Highway 20 over Sherman Pass.

The 1989 White Mountain fire left dead trees, 60 to 80 feet tall, standing within 20 feet of the highway. Not only does that create a very dangerous situation for traffic, but as the dead timber falls down and piles up, it creates further fire hazard.

Yet for seven years, this strange decision was left in place. Now that the timber is just so much rotted wood, the Forest Service has offered it for sale. Now do you just suppose when there are no takers, the preservationists will grab this opportunity to make inane statements like, “Well, if the sawmill needed the timber, they’d bid on it.” The embarrassing part is that there are people who actually believe in this flawed philosophy.

The simple fact is, there is nothing wrong with cutting trees. It is done in a manner consistent with sustainable forest management for now and in the future. As long as there are people who use this product, the need for it will remain. The challenge to those who say “cut no trees” is very clear: “Use no wood products.”

To those who say we are cutting too much in the salvage sales, consider this. The Thunder Mountain fire consumed 160 million board feet of timber in 1994 and the best plan the Okanogan Forest Service could come up with is to offer 18.2 million board feet for salvage. Now, that’s not a lot.

The Copper Butte fire the same summer burned 15 million to 20 million board feet. Of that, 5.4 million board feet was offered for sale. This is also the case on the Tyee burn, with 480 million board feet burned, 90 million might be offered for salvage. On the Rat Creek burn, with 30 million board feet burned, about 6 million might be offered. And so on.

On average, less than 20 percent of firedamaged timber is offered for salvage. The rape and pillage accusations are not even close to accurate. It is more like a long careful courtship with a chaperone in constant attendance.

Let’s keep in mind, the public needs the resource, and if we don’t use the dead and dying trees to help supply that demand, we are just adding to the tragedy of the 1994 fires.

xxxx