Environmentalists turn black ink into red.

Last Wednesday's Daily Inter Lake front-page feature about logging program red ink typifies the poor journalism readers see so much of these days. Too often, politically-driven "reports," "studies," "surveys" and "polls"
that are not worth the recycled paper they are printed upon get passed off by  reporters as credible information, without context.

For readers to fully consider the facts presented, reporters need to explain
not only who authored the "facts," but also what political agenda they might be spinning our way.  This last piece is often left out.  It might also help if reporters read the subject matter rather than just the press release.

 What usually happens is that an organization waging a media propaganda campaign throws together a report that reaches some startling conclusions on a controversial newsworthy issue.  The report, which looks good on the surface, is carefully crafted to sway public opinion.  The references, if cited at all, will be difficult to access and require time-consuming study to decipher.  The report is then shopped around the media with a few great sound bites as a ground-breaking revelation of great importance.   

 Reporters are always eager to use a press release about a controversial study.  All they have to do is get some quotes from cooperative and well prepared report writers; add some quotes from the opposition who are unprepared to make anything but a superficial comment; throw in some background; quote the report itself as if it were gospel; and presto - a front page headliner. 

 I don't mean to single out The Daily Interlake for this criticism.  I actually think the Interlake is kinda balanced and I love the Perspective section on Sunday.  All the media practice this shortcut journalism because it's easy and the public loves it but the truth is left out in the process.

 The truth that was left out by the AP reporter and the Interlake is that Rene Voss the author of this "study" has spent years trying to destroy the logging industry as a director of the Sierra Club and now as a paid staffer for the John Muir Project.  He is completely open about the fact that he is against logging and wants a "zero cut".  He is part of the more radical faction in the Sierra Club that tried to bring back Earth Firster, David Brower, into power at the SC.  This information is readily available through Google and should have been supplied so that readers can decide for themselves what credence to give the conclusions reached in the "study". 

 The study can be found at www.johnmuirproject.org .  I read it; studied it and compared its data and conclusions with information from the USDA Forest Service.  Before I go into what I found, I must tell you who I am and why I am writing this letter.  My name is Gary E Hall and I am from Olney, MT.  I am retired after 19 years at American Timber.  I am presently Vice-President of Montanans For Multiple Use. I receive no money or benefits from MFMU or the timber industry.  I do take a strong position on forest issues in favor of public access and keeping ALL of the multiple uses of our natural resources as viable options for the present and the future.  I support the timber industry because I believe that responsible logging is good for the forest and it provides good paying jobs with benefits.  I write this letter to support forest health and those jobs.  But mostly I write because I flat out get mad when someone manipulates the truth like Rene Voss has done with the help of AP and the Interlake. 

 Voss looks at the Forest Service appropriations from1997 to 2004 and juggles them in some very creative ways.  For instance, appropriations for Hazardous Fuel Reduction were counted as a timber expense because much of it was accomplished by mechanical means rather than burning.  Forest Health Management was expensed against the timber program because tree killing bugs are natural pests and should be left alone.  In my re-calculation of Voss' figures I disallowed these expenses because I think these costs are beneficial to the forest and the public as a whole and would be continued with or without a timber program.  For the same reason I have disallowed Voss' expense for "other budget lines".

Voss uses several off budget items whose funds are derived from timber sales receipts to increase timber's share of expenses.  Planning and monitoring is one example.  This is inappropriate for an analysis of cost to the taxpayer.  Thus, recomputing timber's share of  these items in the report further reduces timber's cost to the taxpayer.  The simplest way to determine timber's share of budget items and fairest formula for this is to simply calculate timber's percentage of the overall National Forest System budget for 2003 which is 20% (264.7/1330 in millions =0.199).  Thus timber's share of land planning etc is reduced to 48.7million (273.6 x .20) from Voss's number of 148.3 million. 

Recalculated taxpayer expense for the Forest Products Program for 2003 

Voss improperly calculated timber's share of road maintenance.  To begin with, Voss charged the timber program with the cost of ripping out roads - hardly a priority for timber harvest.  Then he came up with a strange formula that included off budget items which are actually paid for from timber receipts.  You cannot expense those items without adding the timber income that paid for them to offsetting (returned to treasury) income.  I consider that NFS programs should share the cost of roads proportionately.  Therefore, timber should be charged 20% of the road maintenance for 2003. 

Since the billions budgeted for effective fire fighting would be wasted without roads, fire suppression should share the cost of road maintenance.  In 2003, the total appropriated for fire management programs was 2.71 billion.  The National Forest System only asked for 1.33 billion.  Thus NFS should pay 1/3 of road maintenance and timber should pay 20% of that. 

The John Muir Project folks probably think fire is a wonderful thing for the forest and do not approve of firefighting at all but most reasonable Americans, especially those who have seen first hand what a wildfire can do, support fire management.  

For 2003 by using the bogus logic that the federal funds given to the Secure Rural Schools Act should come from timber sales they added those receipts as an expense to timber instead of deducting them from expenses.  Actually the rationale for this statute is to compensate rural counties that have large federal landholdings for the loss of wealth creation and economic benefit that comes with private property.  Formerly, these reimbursements were tied to timber sales because that was one of the few important economic activities that can occur on public land.  The decline of the timber sale program brought about by environmental activists like Voss has caused an economic hardship in timber counties that SRSCSDA is supposed to alleviate.  Voss wants to charge the timber program for the mitigation necessitated by the actions of radical environmentalists like himself.  The figures Voss used for timber receipts returned to the treasury are only estimates that they came up with.  I will use his figure but instead of adding it to timber cost I will subtract it.  

* Used Voss' figures.

 In 1998 the federal government received 317.6 million in tax revenues directly from timber program businesses and employees.   http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/reports/tspirs/1998/economic_effects.pdf

 According to the BEA, employee wages from the wood products industry declined by 22% from 1998 to 2003. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/default.cfm - a   Using that percentage, we can estimate 2003 tax revenues from timber employment and businesses to be 317.6 x 78% = 247.7 million.

 But that is not the real end of the story because every timber job creates other jobs in businesses dependent on timber and induces even more jobs in the general economy.  These jobs are an indirect result of timber employment and also contribute to tax revenues.  Washington State estimated that for 1997 the lumber industry multiplier for total additional labor income per dollar of wood products mfg (NAICS) is 0.7187.  http://www.ofm.wa.gov/economy/io/io4.pdf    Washington is a major lumber producer and it is reasonable to assume that though the numbers may be slightly different nationwide in 2003 this figure of 70% will be close.  Since changes in labor income are roughly proportional to changes in tax revenues, we can add 70% to the 2003 revenues and get a figure of  421 million for direct, indirect and induced 2003 tax revenues (0.7 x 247.7 + 247.7).  These figures are only rough estimates, which are intended only to convey the overall picture.  Even so that picture is much more accurate than the one presented by Voss who did not in any way account for the offsetting effect of tax revenues attributable to the woods products industry. 

The final accounting looks something like this;

I doubt that there is any real cost to American taxpayers for timber harvest on public lands.  But there are some real important benefits - to the forests, the economy and the folks working in and alongside the timber industry. 

Even if there is currently a cost to the taxpayers, that cost is a direct result of the decrease in logging brought on by environmentalists like Voss.  In the past logging supported itself and subsidized other resource uses in our forests like recreation access.  

"Indeed, it now appears that as the Forest Service's timber management program has evolved from a large-scale enterprise focused mainly on fiber production to a smaller-scale enterprise focused largely on using timber sales to help promote forest and ecosystem health - it has also been transformed, perhaps unavoidably, from a profit-making to a net-cost endeavor."    USDA FOREST MANAGEMENT REPORT, Changing Economics of the National Forest Timber Sale Program http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/reports/tspirs/1997/index.shtml

 Several factors combine to make the timber program less profitable than previously.  All of these factors are a result of abandoning the multiple use ethic and adopting a ecosystem management ethic in its place.

1. Size of the timber program.  A larger program has the advantage of economies of scale
2. Harvest objectives.  Ecosystem health, recreation enhancement, habitat enhancement etc are not as profitable as straight up commercial timber harvest.  Some of these objectives may be worthy but the public will have to realize that they must be paid for with tax dollars.  ",,,the timber included in "forest stewardship" and "personal use" purpose sales is not selected on the basis of its commercial value, but on the basis of other considerations"
3. Harvest methods.  Clearcuts are less expensive to prepare and more profitable for  timber harvesters who will pay more for stumpage.  Less clearcutting is being done today.  However some of the new equipment does increase profitability even with the new methods being required.
4. Type of products harvested.  Sawtimber or non-sawtimber  (smallwood, pulp), green or salvage

The webpage cited above has an indepth discussion of these factors. 

In order to return the timber program we need to re-focus FS timber management to establish a balance between large-scale and small scale production to promote both forest and economic health.  Otherwise, the public will have to get used to the idea of paying more for Forest Service programs.