By John Myers, Duluth News Tribune Staff Writer
Posted on Tue, Apr. 16, 2002
More than 200 scientists, including several from Minnesota and Wisconsin, have signed a letter to President Bush urging him to stop all commercial logging in national forests.
The scientists are asking Bush to set aside national forests as areas where habitat can be restored for diverse plant and animal species and for recreation.
"Without protection from further logging, the biological diversity we so greatly need could be lost,'' the letter states. "Mr. President, we urge you to end the destructive practice of commercial logging in the national forests
and to begin a scientifically based program to restore habitat and native species.''
The scientists' letter will be unveiled in a national campaign today by the Sierra Club, which has for years called for an end to commercial logging in national forests. The campaign also supports a bill in Congress to end commercial logging on federal lands.
Nancy Butler, professor of aquatic biology at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minn., said she signed the letter because of logging impacts she's documented.
"I've done research in logged areas... that suggests that, even with the best management guidelines we have now (for logging), it's not enough. Logging is detrimental to aquatic ecosystems, both locally and on a larger scale,''
Butler said.
While she fully expects her action to be labeled political, Butler said it's important for scientists to support what their efforts have revealed.
"This isn't about Bush or about politics, this is about good science,'' she said.
The letter is not likely to be endorsed by the Bush administration, which has generally moved to maintain or increase logging on federal lands.
U.S. Forest Service spokesman Joe Walsh in Washington, D.C., said he wouldn't comment on the letter until he'd seen it. "We'll comment when we're sure they've actually sent a letter to the president,'' Walsh said. "And we want to see first who these scientists are.''
Not all scientists share the Sierra Club view. The Society of American Foresters -- a private group of 18,000 foresters, timber industry experts and forest researchers -strongly supports commercial timber harvesting on
federal lands and in recent years has pressed for increased harvest on national forests. The group says harvest levels on federal lands are insufficient to maintain forest health, to meet fuel reduction goals, to reduce wildfire risk, and to provide economic and community benefits.
Wayne Brandt, executive vice president of the Duluth-based Minnesota Timber Producers Association industry group, said an end to logging on federal lands is bad science and bad economics.
"If you don't manage those areas, they will become more susceptible to (wind) blowdown, insect and disease and eventually fire. There are a lot of other landowners in and around these forests who have a lot at stake there,''
Brandt said. "Economically, the (national forests) provide wood for one or two mills here. Which two mills does the Sierra Club want to shut down?'' Clyde Hanson, conservation chairman of the Sierra Club's North Star Chapter in Minnesota, said he hopes the scientific support will lead to public pressure on Congress and the Forest Service to support no-cut regulations.
Hanson said supporters can also push locally for "Alternative D'' to the proposed management plans now being developed for the Chippewa and Superior
National Forests in Minnesota. "It's the no-cut alternative that, after cutting for 10 years to convert aspen back to native pines, would end commercial logging on the forests,'' Hanson said.
There are 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands totaling 191 million square miles, an area about the size of Texas, or 8.5 percent of the U.S. land total.
Michael Swift, professor of aquatic ecology on sabbatical from St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn., said national forests are more valuable as areas for recreation and wildlife habitat and as generators of clean water.
"Not only have taxpayers had to subsidize logging, but the environmental costs have been devastating,'' Swift said.
Still, trees cut on the Superior, Chippewa and Chequamegon-Nicolet forests in the Northland are an important part of the regional economy, especially for towns where paper, lumber and boards are made.
And critics of the Sierra Club also note that, with the world's appetite for wood and paper products increasing, it's better to log under government controls in national forests than to shift that logging to private land or to
other nations where environmental protections aren't as strong.
Nationally, less than 4 percent of trees cut come from national forests. In Minnesota, about 5 percent -- or 175,000 cords of the timber industry's estimated 3.8 million cord annual appetite -- comes from national forests.
Most trees are cut on private land, state forests and county forests. Michael Swift, professor of aquatic ecology on sabbatical from St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn., said national forests are more valuable as areas for recreation and wildlife habitat and as generators of clean water. "Not only have taxpayers had to subsidize logging, but the environmental costs have been devastating,'' Swift said. Still, trees cut on the Superior, Chippewa and Chequamegon-Nicolet forests in the Northland are an important part of the regional economy, especially for
towns where paper, lumber and boards are made.
And critics of the Sierra Club also note that, with the world's appetite for wood and paper products increasing, it's better to log under government controls in national forests than to shift that logging to private land or to
other nations where environmental protections aren't as strong.
-----------------
