[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Guest Commentary July 25, 2002
The Future of Our Forests
The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson
This wildfire season has the makings of becoming one of the worst in this nation's history. Already this year, we've burned well over 3 million acres, which by itself is nearly three times the average for an entire year. What's most alarming about this statistic is that, historically, wildfires burn the hottest, largest and most frequent in the latter parts of July through August and into September. The wildfire forecast for the coming months is quite troubling.
The wildfire season this year has spurred something else -- a louder and more intense discussion regarding the access to and management of the public's forests and forest lands. Whether you are talking about timber management, rules limiting road construction or a multiple-use policy for our forest roads, public land use is critical to many of our environmental, economic and recreational goals in Southern Missouri.
Free Newsletter
Get the scoop on important legislation, Congressional action, election updates, hard-hitting political commentary, the latest developments in the War on Terror...and more! Just enter your email address below.
Privacy: Your name and email address will be confidential - never rented, never sold.
In rural counties, like those in Southern Missouri, entire communities and regions are dramatically affected by land use and forest management policies. The forest products industry in Missouri employs more than 34,000 people and contributes about $3 billion a year to the state's economy. It is very important to remember that many of these jobs and communities simply wouldn't exist without a forest where health and public access are adequately balanced.
That is why those of us in Congress who represent communities with forests have continually opposed the Roadless Initiative. The ill-conceived plan sets aside more than 60 million acres of the 192 million acre National Forest System. With more than 25,000 acres of the Mark Twain National Forest affected by the designation, the moratorium could affect millions of acres that are suitable for timber management, recreation and other activities. A shortage or inability to meet the demands for forest products could result in timber being imported in order to meet the needs of consumers wishing to purchase homes or other wood furnishings.
The economic impact on the forest products industry is just one of the reasons I continue to oppose further implementation of the Roadless Initiative and praise President Bush's efforts to do the same. Another reason is the increased risk of forest fire that the initiative could impose on our public lands. In a recent Congressional hearing, the Forest Service said that some 72 million acres of national forest system land are at high risk to catastrophic wildfire. These vast tracts are home to decades worth of dead, downed and dying trees and other woody biomass. That 72 million acres is larger than Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont -- all of New England -- combined. The threat of those potential fires would cost American taxpayers roughly $25 to $150 billion more in tax dollars for fire suppression -- a price tag that is simply too high -- especially if it can be prevented by establishing well-thought-out forest management policies now.
Economic viability, private property rights and forest health are not mutually exclusive. All of these ideals can and need to coexist. Over the past several years, environmental scientists have been looking at ways to strike a balance between forest production and forest health. Research underway has shown the benefit of new techniques to help us effectively manage our forests so that we can achieve forest health for the future, reduce the risk of disease and wildfires and continue forest product production. For instance, scientists are reducing the likelihood of forest fires and providing opportunities for forest product development through site-specific thinning of some trees and underbrush. Forest thinning is similar to what you do when weeding a garden. In other words, we remove unwelcome impediments to growth. By removing small, disease-prone trees and opening the forest floor, scientists say we can create an environment more conducive to plant and grass growth which will keep our forests healthy for generations to come.
There is no argument that we must protect our forests to ensure that future generations can experience these natural treasures. But the people whose livelihoods are threatened and the rights of people to enjoy their forests should not be sacrificed to every endangered species, else they will become endangered species as well. What we must do is ensure that all future policies reflect a practical, scientific approach to the management of our national forests. Only then will we have a forecast for our forests that achieves a responsible balance between locally-driven public-use policies where every stakeholder has a seat at the table and common sense forest management.
Jo Ann Emerson, a Republican, represents the 8th Congressional District of Missouri in the U.S. House of Representatives. The above commentary has been adapted from a weekly column Rep. Emerson issued, July 19, 2002. To contact her, Click Here.
The above column has been distributed by PoliticsOL.com.
