Tongass Action

[Jim]

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bipartisan measure late Wednesday night to end federal funding for logging roads in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. Sponsors say the amendment, if approved by the Senate, will save taxpayers $35 million, the amount the Forest Service estimates it loses annually on Tongass timber sales. Critics see it as a backhanded attempt to shut down the Tongass timber industry. House lawmakers approved the amendment to the Interior appropriations bill on a 222-to-205 vote. The measure would bar the Forest Service from spending any money next year on designing or building new logging roads in the 17-million-acre temperate rain forest in the Southeast panhandle. The Forest Service and the timber industry say new roads are needed to reach old-growth stands located in remote reaches of the Tongass. Logging opponents say the Forest Service has a huge maintenance backlog and can't take care of the existing roads. (06/17/04) Anchorage Daily News

House Votes to Limit Tongass Road Subsidies (06/17/04) EMS

[RobBob]

Now Jim, you know you only titled this thread to get people to look. Hell, I thought maybe trask had stolen your avatar and was going to treat us to some of his wildest posting ever.

[ashw_justin]

Sweet.

 

"The Forest Service and the timber industry say new roads are needed to reach old-growth stands located in remote reaches of the Tongass."

 

You know, it's about time timber companies start paying for their own gadamned roads.

[Jim]

Now Jim, you know you only titled this thread to get people to look. Hell, I thought maybe trask had stolen your avatar and was going to treat us to some of his wildest posting ever.

 

No - that title would likely be "Girls Gone Wild in Tongass"

[scott_harpell]

That is where I am right now. That is all.

[Greg_W]

[scott_harpell]

I mean... that is where I work.

[hopalong]

I mean... that is where I work.

Are you in Nokame(sp) or on the south end?

[Fairweather]

How's the mountain biking? Thinking about a trip up that way in late July.

[johndavidjr]

Population of SE Alaska Panhandle, essentially what they call Tongass, is reported at something under 68,000. If a third of that number is in labor force, that's 22,000 who are interested in employment. Let's say, this group is equally divided between government, service industry, tourism and timber.

 

That's 5,000 people potentially having or wanting jobs the timber industry of region, compared with roughly 100 million people in US labor force.

 

So we should worry about those folks proportionately to the US economy. Or are they special? Is it okay to balance their interests with other interests? Keep in mind, MERELY for the sake of proportion, that the Federal Reserve wants 4%-5% of the labor force unemployed, not counting "illegals," in order to keep down inflation without supposed need for high interest rates. That's 4 million -5 million people who are SOL.

 

But board feet can do a lot of talking on Wall Street, which does contribute a great deal to the political process. A side note: the Wall Street neighborhood, a couple of square miles, reportedly lost 25,000 jobs as result of recession and 9/11 & only a few thousand have come back.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2004 by johndavidjr

[sailBOI]

It is perhaps ironic that most opponents to logging live in wooden houses, and most opponents to oil drilling drive cars !

 

We need to preserve old growth, but increase the yield from timber lands. The building supply companies on the Olympic Peninsula are all selling Canadian lumber, so the jobs went to Canada. This is a direct result of over protection during the last 20 years. We need to protect Wilderness areas, but allow cutting on other federal lands.

 

Of all building materials, timber is the most enviro-friendly. Steel, concrete, aluminum and plastic are all requiring high usage of carbon fuels. Wood is a carbon sink and is biodegradable in the long run, making it the ideal material.

 

The Indians made a practice of burning off areas of forest to provide grazing and foraging for animals that they hunted. There is much less food for the fauna in mature old growth than in areas burned or cut. This is another benefit of harvesting trees.

[cj001f]

It is perhaps ironic that most opponents to logging live in wooden houses, and most opponents to oil drilling drive cars !

 

We need to preserve old growth, but increase the yield from timber lands. The building supply companies on the Olympic Peninsula are all selling Canadian lumber, so the jobs went to Canada. This is a direct result of over protection during the last 20 years. We need to protect Wilderness areas, but allow cutting on other federal lands.

Over protection? Try they cut the Olympics clean. See much timber of harvestable size left on the peninsula outside of the National Park? I haven't. Whether you care about preserving old growth or not, by it's nature it's a finite resource (relative to our lifetimes), and little remains of it - why sacrifice this irreplaceable (again, in our lifetimes) resource, for an extra 5 years of logging employment?

[cj001f]

So we should worry about those folks proportionately to the US economy. Or are they special?

Their Congressional Delegation wields a power disproportionate to their states status.

[sailBOI]

It is perhaps ironic that most opponents to logging live in wooden houses, and most opponents to oil drilling drive cars !

 

We need to preserve old growth, but increase the yield from timber lands. The building supply companies on the Olympic Peninsula are all selling Canadian lumber, so the jobs went to Canada. This is a direct result of over protection during the last 20 years. We need to protect Wilderness areas, but allow cutting on other federal lands.

Over protection? Try they cut the Olympics clean. See much timber of harvestable size left on the peninsula outside of the National Park? I haven't. Whether you care about preserving old growth or not, by it's nature it's a finite resource (relative to our lifetimes), and little remains of it - why sacrifice this irreplaceable (again, in our lifetimes) resource, for an extra 5 years of logging employment?

 

I don't favor cutting Old Growth, and was not referring to Olypen resources in particular. There is an element in the Enviro movement that wants all cutting on Federal lands stopped.

We have the timber in the US to supply our builders, why should we be exporting the milling industry to Canada ?? Look at our trade balance, we cannot afford the luxury of not touching 40% of the lands west of the Missippi River.......we need to place the remainder of Old Growth into Wilderness designation, and employ the ballance wisely.

There are a number of areas on the east side of the Olympics that are ready to harvest, and a deal should be struck to add to the Wilderness areas, and selectively harvest other areas.

[EWolfe]

[johndavidjr]

Re: Sailboy post.

"We need to preserve old growth but increase the yield from timber lands."

 

Except for the 20% they've clear cut so far, isn't all the 5 million acres of Tongass timberlands old growth? (TNF has 11m+ acres rock & ice.)

 

"The Indians made a practice of burning...." They must've had an especially tough life in coastal rain forests.

 

"Of all building materials...carbon fuels.. bla bla

Here's a nice solution from link provided by your Brinnon friends

http://www.envirotruth.org/

 

BTW Forest Svc Tongass Web site says its net loss on Tongass timber sales is $106 per thousand board feet. Annual harvest has I understand, varied in past decade from 400m+ to 100m+ depending on market conditions in a given year.

 

My math is weak but whatever the annual subsidy, it's sizable, Perhaps they'd should just pay it directly to the relatively few workers involved, cutting out middlemen.

 

----------------------------------

[cj001f]

There is an element in the Enviro movement that wants all cutting on Federal lands stopped.

We have the timber in the US to supply our builders, why should we be exporting the milling industry to Canada ?? Look at our trade balance, we cannot afford the luxury of not touching 40% of the lands west of the Missippi River.

Most enviros at the very least want the subsidised logging of public lands stopped - which I heartily agree with.

 

The reason our timber demands are being outsourced is the timber's cheaper elsewhere - probably partly because of cutting restrictions, but labor, etc are all high in the US. Russia and Canada have vast forests, and are willing to give big subsidies. Of course the enviros turn a blind eye to the nasty fact of the damage being done overseas...

[sailBOI]

Of course the enviros turn a blind eye to the nasty fact of the damage being done overseas...

 

Yes, they don't want to see the logging. The hard fact is that once we export these jobs, be it resource or manufacturing, there is often less enviro protection. This would apply to oil spills in Siberia, manufacturing in China and logging practices most anywhere. As I say, we cannot afford this, financially we are burrowing ever deeper into debt and environmentally we have exported and worsened the problems.

As we approach 300 million people, we must be looking at the most friendly way to utilize what we have here in the USA. The lowest impact is had by harvesting at home, there is less handling and shipping and we are in control of the enviro impacts.

As I say, the opponents to this are mostly living in wooden houses.........so there is a certain duplicity !

[olyclimber]

Famous Paul Tsongas qoutes:

 

"Let's try winning and see what it feels like. If we don't like it, we can go back to our traditions. "

 

 

"Nobody on his deathbed ever said, "I wish I had spent more time at the office." "

 

 

"That's a good question. Let me try to evade you"

[Winter]

Logging on federal our federal forests contributes all of 3% of the national market for timber. We could EASILY eliminate that 3%, use public lands for biological reserves, and protect economic development in our rural communities for a fraction of the $1 billion per year the federal government LOSES on logging.

[cj001f]

Logging on federal our federal forests contributes all of 3% of the national market for timber. We could EASILY eliminate that 3%, use public lands for biological reserves, and protect economic development in our rural communities for a fraction of the $1 billion per year the federal government LOSES on logging.

And transition them to an industry with a potential employment growth, ending welfare subsidies? Oh what will the liberals think of next!

[murraysovereign]

We have the timber in the US to supply our builders, why should we be exporting the milling industry to Canada ??

 

Funny thing, that, 'cause on the Canadian side of the border the big complaint is that we're shipping so many raw logs to the US instead of processing them here, effectively "exporting our milling industry" to the States. I guess the grass really is always greener on the other side...

[bDubyaH]

Lets see, the trees are fantastic, the clearcuts are lame. The timber industry is heavily subsidized by the gov. Much of the wilderness land in SE AK is rock and ice, not trees. Tourism brings in far more money than logging in SE Ak. People like the trees and the thought that there is wildlife in it. Please don't start on how clearcuts lead to more wildlife due to increased habitable areas either...clear cuts are just not what tourists want to see. The productivity of salmon streams is directly related to the health of the riparian corridors in SE AK. Fishing brings in more money than logging. Most of the round logs from the Tongass are shipped overseas to be processed, then shipped back for us to buy. Obviously there is a rather small contribution from the Tongass to the overall national timber supply. Why not preserve the largest temperate rain forest we have for people to enjoy, or is it just a commodity? Or should we just cut it all down so a few companies can make some money while the rets of us pay for it.

[Thinker]

I'm of the opinion that government subsidized resource extraction on public lands is a sham. The taxpayer often pays for road development, restoration, and clean up costs at a rate very close to the profits made from the resource extraction.

 

So, if we're eventually going to pay for road building, clean up of mines and oil wells, reduced fish catches, and numerous other 'hidden costs' of these activities, it's my opinion that we should just hand the cash directly to the oil, timber, and mining companies and leave the land undisturbed.

 

But, of course, that wouldn't appear proper and would ruffle feathers...so our politicians trash the land in the process and somehow that makes it all seem legitimate.

 

Strange, I thought things like that only happened under dictatorships.

[olyclimber]