[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ Michigan Timbermans Association Defends Multiple Abuse!
- Subject: E-M:/ Michigan Timbermans Association Defends Multiple Abuse!
- From: Murphwild1@aol.com
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:33:05 EDT
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: Murphwild1@aol.com
Enviro-Mich message from Murphwild1@aol.com
A response from Peter Grieves, executive director of the Michigan Timbermans
Association, to a guest opinion peice I wrote. I have included my original
The Mining Journal
re: "Dont overlog federal lands", by Murray Dailey
Forester Mr. Touchinski's response to "Dont overlog federal lands," and to a
lawsuit filed by Northwoods Wilderness Recovery (NWR) and Heartwood against
the Ottawa NF is troubling. Mr. Touchinski's lack of understanding and facts
National Forests are far more valuable to rural communities standing than cut
down. The federal logging program creates billions of dollars in unaccounted
costs to communities, businesses, and individuals in addition to the $1.2
billion annual financial losses to the U.S. Treasury.
The $1.2 billion is just the tip of the iceberg. The costs associated with
polluted water from logging and mills, lost recreational opportunities, and
degraded scenery from the federal timber program are many times that amount.
The Ottawa NF lost an average of 164 dollars per acre logged for the years
1993 through 1997 (high -182.00 in 1997, low -128.00 in 1995). The average
loss, times the acreage of logging (3254) means a savings to taxpayers of
533,656 dollars from the lawsuit filed by NWR! The Hiawatha NF lost an
average of $123 per acre logged for the years 1993 through 1997 (high -$228;
Ottawa Timber Staff Officer Jim Muiener has said ninety percent of the trees
coming off the Ottawa national forest are going towards production of paper
products. Logging could end today in the Ottawa with alternative fibers and
moderate conservation measures by business and individuals.
Less than 5% of the Nations paper and lumber needs are met from logging in
federal forests, yet they contain much of the last vestiges of critical
habitat for endangered and rare species and clean water supply.
Rather then spending taxpayer dollars to degrade our national heritage, we
should invest in programs for ecological restoration, adequate school
funding, alternative fiber research, and vocational training in local
communities. The answers are all around us.
Our National Forests were originally designated to be protected from
industrial exploitation. We must continue to speak out and take back our
public lands from corporate and government domination. The federal timber
program is a economic and ecological failure--just look around.
Northwoods Wilderness Recovery
PO Box 122
Marquette, MI 49855-0122
The Mining Journal
Marquette, MI Saturday, April 15, 2000
Forestry Manages Resource
This is in response to the April 4 letter by Murray Dailey of Northwoods
Wilderness Recovery and in defense of the letter of March 2 by Mike
As executive director of the Michigan Timbermans Association of Timbermen for
the last 28 years, I have worked closely with state officials, our national
forest leaders and private citizens in the forest industry.
First, let us review the facts:
1. Michigan leads the nation in surplus forest source. Proof: Fifth Michigan
Forest Inventory and Analysis. (FIA 1993)
2. Increase of 35 percent in tree volume and 1 million more acres (7 percent)
of forests in 13 years. Proof: FIA studies.
3. Harvesting less than 45 percent of annual growth. Proof: FIA studies.
4. Adding value and creating opportunities in Michigan's $12 billion forest
economy. One of 15 of manufacturing jobs are as a result of Michigan
Forestry, Proof: Studies by Sustainable Development Roundtable.
This is a success, unless you are committed to seeing our forest lands
developed into a vast wilderness area as envisioned by supporters of the
Wildlands Project. Advocates believe it is necessary to set aside 50 percent
of our land for development into a pre-settlement conditions to protect the
biodiversity of this country. Their first target is to move all public land
into this condition with restrictive land management practices that exclude
forest management for timber products, other commodities and motorized
recreation. The average use of these lands is seen as a threat to this
"natural condition" and they feel access should be limited. For more
information, go to ww.epi.freedom.org/maps.htm.
Mr. Dailey claims that vast amounts of money are lost on national forest
timber sales, FACT: 95 percent of national forest revenues come from timber
sales and only 40 percent of the budget is used for this work. Much of that
40 percent budget is due to added regulations, appeals and lawsuits brought
by preservationist groups.
The national forests were never meant to be national parks. The US congress
in at least four major laws has decided that the national forest have
multiple uses. Currently, less than 35 percent of our national forest are
managed for wood products. Timber production is cited as major use that
benefits the entire public who want a steady supply of wood products.
Here are some things that should be considered. how will the national forests
pay for their other work if we stop harvesting trees? Where will the timber
come from to meet the public's demand for wood? Why is it wrong to practice
forestry on public lands originally designated to grow wood products for this
purpose? We of the forest community support and practice sound forest
management. So should you. Our jobs, our lifestyle, and our lives depend on
Peter Grieves, executive director
Michigan Timbermans Association
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send email to
email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"