People, Homes, Forests and Owls

Harry Pollard

[Reprinted from The InterStudent Review, September 1993]

Reason and politics seem to have little in common. Nothing underscores this more than the controversy surrounding the protection of the Spotted Owl. In the cross fire, thousands of loggers have lost their jobs, and their families have been torn apart. Studies have recorded increased spousal and child abuse, and alcohol and drug addiction, as formerly self-sustaining communities of workers have turned to welfare or been forced to leave their families in search of work.

Meanwhile, restrictions on logging have made housing increasingly less affordable. Will Higman, Vice President of Contractor Sales and Purchasing for Reliable Wholesale Lumber Inc., a major southland supplier, estimated that lumber costs have risen by as much as 70% since 1991. And "for every 20% Increase In wood costs up to 65,000 American families are priced out of houses they could have afforded previously," according to Randy Fitzgerald in The Great Spotted Owl War.

However, the real motivation behind the Spotted Owl controversy has very little to do with Spotted Owls. There's no documented evidence that Spotted Owls are in any danger of extinction, or that they require old-growth forests to survive. Every credible study, whether carried out by the National Audubon Society, the Interagency Scientific Committee, or even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have shown that owl populations are larger than previously expected, can thrive and breed In second growth forests, and are multiplying with every recount!

According to a recent California Forestry Association document, The Paradox of Too Many Owls:

The total known three-state northern spotted owl population today is 4,018 pairs and 2,047 single birds-over 10,000 spotted owls. This number is double the total population projected by the Fish and Wildlife Service Just four years ago, and almost three times the Initial population estimates offered by early researchers little more than a decade ago. The only certainty is that these numbers , will continue to Increase for years to come.

With these rapidly growing numbers of owls located In the forests, It is not difficult to see why protecting this not-so-rare bird under the Endangered Species Act has so drastically curtailed federal, state and private timber harvesting In the three state region. Federal, state and private landowners are urged to conduct northern spotted owl surveys before planning any timber harvesting In the owl region, and these surveys continually turn up owls where harvesting was planned. The result In most cases: No harvesting can be done. The paradox of too many northern spotted owls is at the heart of the timber supply crisis In the Northwest.

The fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bowed to intense lobbying pressure from the Sierra Club Legal Defence Fund in 1989 to list the owl as threatened had precious little to do with scientific evidence. The real motivation behind the Spotted Owl controversy is to outlaw logging in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. The spotted owl is Just the tool of environmental groups to bring about that end. "The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," said Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

There are nine million acres of old-growth (over 200 years old) forest on federal lands from California to Washington. Six million acres are already off-limits to logging. In question were three million remaining acres of old- growth trees. These were being cut at a rate of 60,000 acres a year. If logging had continued at its current rate, with current sustained yield policies of replanting, etc., a similar amount of acreage in other forests would have matured into old-growth forests replacing the current forests.

Is America running out of trees? Not at all. There are more trees in America today than there were in the early 1900s. Thirty percent of the country's forests have been set aside, and 70% of these are in the Pacific Northwest. In California, less than 30% of national, forest lands are even available for harvesting under federal management.

What we are dealing with today is a situation where a small, but highly visible group of special interests have Jammed the courts to bring logging In the Pacific Northwest to a painful dribble. The results have been devastating. In California alone, some twenty-three mills have been closed down permanently since 1990. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with timber-industry groups and labor unions estimate that more than 100,000 people throughout the Pacific Northwest may be displaced as a result of restricted logging mandates.

In Contribution and Impact of Forest Products Industry to Economy of California, issued by the California Forestry Association, we found that the California forest industry in California:

• Employs more than 130,000 people.
  
• Supports nearly 300.000 more "spin off Jobs in the retail and service sectors, transportation, agriculture and government.
  
• Provides wages in excess of $4 billion annually.
  
• Accounts for one in ten Jobs in eleven northern counties, and more than half the manufacturing employment in many counties.

Furthermore:

• Nearly 70 percent of forest products produced in California stay in California and used primarily for housing and general construction.
  
• In view of supply and regulatory restrictions, lumber prices have increased by more than 100 percent in the past three months.
  
• A 20 percent increase in the purchase price of wood could effectively price as many as 650,000 families out of the new and existing housing market during a ten-year period, and add more than $55 billion to consumer mortgage debt.
  

And Federal timber supplies are dwindling:

• Nationwide in 1992, U.S. Forest Service timber sales dwindled to their lowest level in nearly forty years.
  
• 1.3 billion board feet of timber was scheduled for U.S. Forest Service sales in California in Fiscal Year 1992. Total accomplishment for '92 was only 638 million board feet.
  

Some other facts are worth mentioning. These are from the Evergreen Foundation's report. The Truth About America's Forests:

• The nation's forest land area is still about two-thirds the size it was in 1600. This in spite of the conversion of 370 million acres of forest land to other uses, principally agriculture. Add to this the enormous harvest that has been necessary to build this nation, warm its citizens and drive its engines. To this total, add all of the losses to forest fires, diseases and insect infestations. Even after all of this, we still have two-thirds as much forest as when the Pilgrims landed.
  
• In 1900, forest growth rates nationally were a fraction of harvest. Today, annual forest growth exceeds harvest by 37%.
  
• Net annual growth has increased 62% since 1952, and growth per acre has increased 71%.
  
• Nationally, standing timber volume per acre in U.S. forests is 30% greater than in 1952.
  
• Industrial forest lands on the Pacific Coast are growing at a rate of almost 150 cubic feet per acre per year, about two and one-half times the growth rate of industrial lands In the South.
  
• Annual growth in national forests now exceeds harvest by more than 55%.
  
• Six-tenths of one percent of the available national forest land base is harvested annually. This harvest equals two-tenths of one percent of the total national forest land base.
  
• Pacific Coast national forests hold about twice as much timber as all other national forests combined.
  
• 70% of America's national forest land base is in land use categories where timber production is forbidden. 30% remains open to varying levels of harvest activity, consistent with achieving non-timber multiple use objectives.
  

It has been said that one should not have to prove a point with statistics. Yet, we as a society are increasingly falling prey to special interest groups whose agendas harm the entire economy. If one were to characterize their understanding of our forest lands and species. It would be an understatement to say It falls somewhere In between sheer stupidity and cock-sure ignorance.

Food, clothing and shelter are basic human needs. We must not allow a few people to manipulate the legislative process to satisfy their short-sighted goals.