by Alan Journet
Conservation Chair, Trail of Tears Group
Department of Biology, Southeast Missouri State University
In 1991, Federal District Judge William Dwyer banned timber harvest sales on 24 million acres in 17 National Forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. The ban was imposed until such time as the US Forest Service could provide assurance that logging would not harm the endangered northern spotted owl.
This decision brought the right wing doomsayers out in force. President George Bush proclaimed "It is time we worried not only about endangered species, but endangered jobs." Congressman Bob Smith (R -OR) warned that reducing logging on federal lands "will take us to the bottom of a black hole." Senator Hatfield (R-OR), meanwhile, warned that the mill towns would be turned into ghost towns.
So, what actually happened? With the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, we can now assess the accuracy of these predictions.
In contrast to those dire economic fears, since 1991 the economy of the affected areas has blossomed, with regional economies out-performing even the national economy. While timber harvests have fallen 91% on federal land (52% overall) and timber-related employment has fallen 15%, per capita income has risen 25% (in 1999 dollars) and total employment has risen 31%.
Apparently there are three reasons for the outcome being opposite to the predictions of economic catastrophe, none of which should have surprised the doomsayers of the day. The first is that in 1998 the timber industry played only a very small role in the economy of the region, ranging from 0.9% in California to a high of 3.4% in Washington. In Missouri, by comparison, it represented just 1.3% of the state economy. A second reason is that in many states, after the costs of forest management are taken into account, logging is actually a net loss to regional economies: in 1997, the loss in California amounted to over $3.8 million, in Washington the loss was $1.4 million. Only the National Forests of Oregon operated as a regional economic plus, at $23.7 million. Interestingly, the Mark Twain National Forest of Missouri during the same period cost the region $1.2 million.
A third contributor to the positive outcome is that the timber harvest nationally comprises a minuscule proportion of the economic benefit gained from our National Forests. 1995 data revealed that timber contributed just 2.7% of the Gross Domestic Product generated from our National Forests and just 2.3% of the 3.3 million jobs. Recreational activities, meanwhile, weigh in at over 75% of the GDP, and 78% of the jobs. While recreational activities do not have a negative impact on timber harvest, the reverse is not the case. Many timber harvest techniques harm recreation – either directly by deterring tourists, or indirectly by polluting rivers and damaging fisheries.
It turns out that rather than being an economic catastrophe as many continually argue, reducing or eliminating logging in National Forests actually has resulted in an economic boom in the Northwest. As many conservatives are beginning to realize, our National Forests are too valuable a resource for us to allow their management for the benefit of a small though politically powerful segment of society: the timber industry. If we were to apply sound economic management to these forests we would reap not only economic benefits, but would also provide improved habitat for a wealth of the nation's threatened and endangered species.
It is time for us to evaluate more wisely the social and economic costs and benefits of logging our National Forests and incorporate into the accounting non-timber benefits and services provided.
Information based on Niemie and Fifield 2000 ‘Seeing the Forests for the Green,’ a Sierra Club Report