Hanson: “Forest ‘restoration’ rule is ruse to increase [commercial] logging”

Hanson: “Forest ‘restoration’ rule is ruse to increase [commercial] logging”

http://ift.tt/2ExhP3h

This op-ed is nothing new from Chad Hanson, but here goes anyhow….

“The U.S. Forest Service recently proposed a sweeping effort to identify aspects of environmental analysis and public participation to be “reduced” or “eliminated” regarding commercial logging projects in our national forests, with initial public comments due Friday. The Trump administration is attempting to spin this as an effort to promote “increased efficiency” for the expansion of forest “restoration,” but these are just euphemisms for more destructive logging.”

Logging is “destructive” — especially commercial logging. That’s partly, I think, because it is commercial — a profit might be made. This issue came up in a recent discussion I had with friends about the highly controversial plan by Nestle to build a water-bottling plant in Cascade Locks, a small town on the Columbia River. (The plans were nixed last year by Oregon Gov. Kate Brown.) Bark, an environmental group that is opposed to commercial logging on the nearby Mt. Hood National Forest, also is opposed to commercial water bottling: It suggested that like-minded people “Please tell [the state regulatory agency] that ‘Giving public water away so that Nestlé can bottle and profit from it is the wrong thing for Oregon! Retain our public water rights!’

I asked one of my well-connected friends who opposed the deal whether other opponents would favor it if, instead of Nestle, a non-profit organization or perhaps the city of Cascade Locks itself opened a bottling plant. His answer: “Of course!” Much of the opposition was apparently not about the water, but about making a profit from it.

Would Hanson would oppose “destructive logging” even if a non-profit were the contractor? Probably. Others do not. The National Wild Turkey Federation hasn’t had much opposition to its work as a stewardship contractor in Arizona, for example:

“Forest thinning offers several benefits, according to Scott Lerich, NWTF senior regional biologist. Among them are: increased biodiversity, watershed quality and amounts of forbs and grasses available for wildlife. It also increases employment opportunities, conservation of wildlife and prevents large-scale forest fires.” And: “Encompassing about 5,000 acres and home to Mount Graham red squirrels and Mexican spotted owls, this area needs commercial logging and prescribed fire to manage several species of pine and firs.”

When I interviewed Lerich for a recent article in The Forestry Source, he told me that the Center for Biological Diversity approved of the project.

If anyone of this blog has a connection with Hanson, I suggest that you invite him to join us in a discussion of the commercial aspects of logging.

 

 

 

Superforest

via A New Century of Forest Planning http://ift.tt/YeNBM9

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s