Now that many of the National Forests of the West are on fire—240,000
acres in Idaho alone—much of the flap over President Clinton’s roadless
initiative has temporarily slipped from the national consciousness. This fact, in itself,
offers an ironic parable that we, as a society, keep refusing to learn—namely that
nature runs its course regardless of our sound and fury.
This is not to say the issue won’t come back. It will. The period for
public comment ended on July 17; however, the debate will rage on in the political and
legal realms. And it seems to me that the most important time to be vigilant in one’s
beliefs is always after the issue is removed from public debate and turned over to
the politicians and lawyers.
Clinton’s initiative, which takes the form of an executive order and
thereby bypasses the Congress, prohibits any future road building on 43 million acres of
national forest. Nine million of those acres are in Idaho, a state which is 40 percent
national forest. The initiative does not specifically prohibit logging or other activities
on the land; those decisions are left to the discretion of local forest managers.
There are several key arguments against the proposal. Each is worth
examining.
The first battle cry, on this issue and many other western land use
debates, is the freedom argument. Western politicians and ordinary citizens alike claim
that the "Easterners" are meddling in our sandbox, that they have no right to
tell us what to do with our public, let alone private land. This argument, and the
traditional western concept of freedom is an arcane one. It is a much smaller world now.
The West is no longer a vast expanse dotted with a few settlers. Exercising liberties
affects more people than it used to.
John Stuart Mill, in his essay "On Liberty," pointed out almost
150 years ago that the State might have to interfere with the freedoms of some individuals
to protect the freedoms of others. What proponents of the freedom argument refuse to
acknowledge is that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee absolute freedom; it
guarantees equal freedom for all citizens. It is the very reason that falsely
crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal.
A second key argument is that there is no need for protection because the
private logging industry has an economic incentive to sustain forests anyway. One would
think so, but the facts don’t bear that out.
Because of the increasing regulation in the Northwest, logging companies
have been garnering more and more of their harvests from forests in the South. From 1977
to 1997, timber harvests in the South increased by 50 percent. Now more than two-thirds of
the 16 billion cubic feet of timber harvested in the United States comes from the South.
(Approximately 5 percent comes from the Northwest).
Since most of the timber in the South is on private land (70 percent),
logging companies are pretty much left up to their own devices. What they have been doing
with their freedom is removing trees faster than they grow. On private lands in 1997,
harvesting exceeded growth by 15 percent. At this rate, only 10 percent of the original
forest will be left after 15 years. It is hard to believe logging companies are in
business for the long term with an economic plan like this.
A third issue is jobs. The Forest Service estimates that under the
initiative annual timber sales in Idaho would decrease by 20 percent, leading to the loss
of 180 jobs and approximately $5 million per year in revenue. Still, it seems that the
economic wave of Idaho’s future will be built upon recreation, tourism and, perhaps,
technology industries—not the harvesting of natural resources.
The last point often raised by opponents of the initiative is that if
roads aren’t built and the land logged, it will be destroyed by fire anyway. As far
as I can tell, the fires raging across the West are not discriminating between forests
with roads and those without. Which brings me back where I started. Fires happen for a
reason. They rejuvenate forests, allow for new growth, new habitat, and bio-diversity.
Logging forests so that they won’t burn is ludicrous.
No doubt the initiative will eventually cause the price of lumber to go
up. But that may not be all bad either. Yes, a lot of people get rich in construction
booms like the one we are in, but at what cost? It is easy to become victims of our own
successes. It always occurs to us much too late that a booming economy might destroy
everything we hope to enjoy once we have enough money to enjoy it. If a higher price of
lumber discourages a few people from building a second or third or fourth home and, at the
same time, reflects the value of our national forests, it’s possible we are doing the
right thing.
To date, the Forest Service hasn’t released the results of its public
comment period so it is hard to know where the majority lies. What is clear is that the
process will now grind to a halt as politicians and lawyers do their best to obstruct the
plan. Sen. Larry Craig and other Republicans are considering tacking legislation onto an
appropriations bill to block the initiative. Boise and Valley counties, along with the
Boise Cascade Co., have filed a suit to stop the plan.
One can’t help but wonder if some of the political wrangling is
fueled by egos. The President may have angered congressmen by putting the initiative in an
executive order and thereby bypassing them altogether. Granted, Clinton’s ego may
also be at play here in that he is trying to build a legacy as his second term comes to an
end. But who really cares? The practical result is that we will preserve something special
that everyone can enjoy forever.
Forever is a long time. It is long after all of the lumber
companies diversify or merge or go out of business. It is long after all of the rancorous
political relationships have dried up and blown away in the wind.
