[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ DNR Budget and Timber
- Subject: E-M:/ DNR Budget and Timber
- From: "Anne M. Woiwode" <anne.woiwode@prodigy.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:22:55 -0500
- Delivered-To: enviro-mich-archive@glc.org
- Delivered-To: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: "Anne M. Woiwode" <anne.woiwode@prodigy.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Anne M. Woiwode" <anne.woiwode@prodigy.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks:
The debate has begun again about whether the Legislature should include a
timber management mandate in the DNR's budget. The Subcommittee is
expected to vote on March 15th, and will have another hearing on the budget
bill (HB 4259) next Thursday, 8:30 a.m., in the House Office
Building. Below is a quick overview of some of the debate, and more will
follow.
We know for certain that the corporations by the Mead Paper Company, as
well as associations like the Michigan Association of Timbermen, are making
the rounds of the subcommittee members, urging them to support mandated
timber levels. So than no one mistakes this for some kind of altruistic
effort to assure that the forests are properly managed, let us be very
clear that increased sales of timber from state lands will go straight to
bringing down the costs of timber and increasing the supply that the
industry can buy. While there is plenty of room for a healthy timber
industry in Michigan, the question has to be asked as to why it is
essential for the state's forest lands to be the target of arbitrary
marking goals to put wood into the pipeline to feed the timber beast? Can
anyone really argue that we should ignore all other values when managing
our state forests, and simply let the Legislature mandate timber be our top
priority?
In the Subcommittee the Michigan Association of Timbermen made the
following arguments as to why the people of Michigan owe it to the timber
industry to mandate a minimum level. As columnist Dave Barry says, I am
not making this up.
1) In 1994, the DNR reportedly asked private organizations for help lobby
to put an extra $1 million of state taxpayer money into the DNR's budget
for Forest Management to allow the DNR to bring on extra foresters. That
the DNR at that time asked for groups to lobby on their behalf is not
unusual -- they approached many groups, including Sierra Club, with that
request. The Michigan Association of Timbermen, and apparently the rest of
the timber industry, claim that this request came with a "promise" that the
DNR would produce a 100,000 cords more of timber the next year. Again,
let's be clear about this -- this was lobbying of the state Legislature
during one year to put State tax money into a State agency for hiring staff
-- how anyone in their right mind would consider this a valid basis for
arguing six years later that the people of Michigan owe it to the timber
industry for the past four Fiscal Years, and for this coming Fiscal Year as
well, to arbitrarily increase the amount of timber that the DNR must
prepare for harvest is rather a large leap, as far as I am concerned.
2) The MAT claims that despite their munificent act of lobbying for
increasing timber levels from DNR land in 1994, in fact nothing was
increased. However, the DNR points out that in fact they did treat many
more acres of land starting in the mid-1990's. The numbers went from
somewhere around 48,000 acres to in FY1999 60,000 acres. The reality is,
however, that those lands contain large amounts of northern hardwood
forests which produce wood of a much higher value, despite taking fewer
cords off the land. The reality is that northern hardwoods produce not
only more dollars per cord, they also produce many more jobs per cord, both
out in the woods and in the mills. Quite simply, it takes many fewer
people to clearcut and pulp wood for oriented strandboard or paper than it
does for lumber, so the economic benefit to a community of a cord of wood
from a northern hardwood stand is much greater than the cord of wood from a
clearcutting pulping operation. Needless to say, it is often easier to keep
your tourism base when there is a select harvested forest stand than when
the land is clearcut, so that economic angle is also improved.
3) The MAT claims that Michigan's state forest could sustain timber cutting
intensity of about twice the number of cords of wood coming off the forests
today. This is a back of the envelope calculation that assumes several
things. First, it assumes that all the land that has trees on it is fair
game for cutting, and that all of that land will produce at an average rate
of .5 cords per acre per year. So, for example, despite the fact that the
timber industry claims they are interested in more environmentally sound
forest practices, this calculation says that there would be no set asides
for rare or sensitive areas, no set asides for riparian zones to prevent
degradation of waterways, that we would cut in the cedar swamps that are
not regenerating because of far too great deer browse, and that any trees
in campgrounds, along trails or in other scenic areas should be ready to be
marked for whacking. To its credit, in order to create a better picture of
the resource they manage, the DNR has been trying to get a handle on how
much of their land will be off limits to timber cutting for these reasons,
in addition to those acres that are water or are treeless. In some cases,
lands are not accessible for logging because they are land locked by
private owners, or there are no bridges to get to them, but the proportion
of land in the factor limited category for those reasons is relatively small.
4) The MAT claims that despite the mandate last year for 69,000 acres to be
put up for sale, the DNR only put up 49,000. According to DNR this is a
fact. The reality is that huge numbers of DNR staff were called to work on
fire crews in the west last year because of the remarkably intense fire
season. As a result, the staff were not available to do a whole range of
activities, including timber sales. Does the timber industry believe that
it was a bad idea for DNR staff to go out west to fight fires? They
certainly shouldn't -- their "assets", ie their own forest lands, depend on
fire fighting by the DNR, and the state trades its staff time and resources
with other states and agencies to fight fires where and when they are
needed, knowing full well that forests in Michigan, including those owned
by the timber industry, will someday benefit from having fire fighters from
other parts of the country come fight fires here. As a result, this
argument by MAT is so much more obnoxious than the others -- the industry
SUPPORTS the DNR doing fire fighting, yet will turn around and pick up the
fact that as a result they did less timber management to beat the DNR over
the head. It should be noted that the DNR also said they will increase the
acres to 63,000 this coming FY to try to make up for the reduction last
year, however they also ran into a shortage of contractors to hire to carry
out the work. Since the state went through staff reductions in 1997 (which,
by the way, was the original reason given in the legislation for having a
timber mandate) the agency has been required to hire contractors to help
complete their work, it shouldn't be a surprise that in the past few years
those folks are harder to find and hire.
Again, there is much more to this issue as well. Please join in the effort
to kill this mandate once and for all --
Anne Woiwode
<<- <<- <<- <<- <<- <<- ->> ->> ->> ->> ->>
Anne Woiwode, Program Director, Michigan Forest Biodiversity Program
Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter, 109 East Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906
phone: 517-484-2372 email:
anne.woiwode@sierraclub.org
==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
Postings to: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================