Putting our National Forests in a Lock Box

R. E. Smith Jr.

The latest national environmental wrangle swirls around remote chunks of our 191 million acre national forest system, virtually inaccessible to citizens. The Clinton administration ruled that 30 percent of these forests, established for multiple uses, be closed to all use.

Preservationists and their government enablers subvert the use of more of our land—journalists refer to the land lock box crowd as “conservationists.” But they have no interest in wise use of our lands; their goal is to stymie the capitalistic benefits derived from our natural resources.

President Theodore Roosevelt, a well known public land advocate, set our national forest policy, which had worked well for nearly 100 years. In a Bureau of Forestry (predating the U.S. Forest Service, established in 1905) circular, he defined U. S. forest policy:

The object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself, but the primary object of our forest policy, as of the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes . . . Every other consideration comes as secondary.

Thus, our national forests were established primarily to provide wood products, not for their beauty or wilderness values. These values are not ignored, but they are secondary purposes in management. We have millions of other acres of national parks and monuments legally preserved for beauty and wilderness.

In America’s early days of learning how to manage forests for sustained wood production, Roosevelt explained the meaning of forest protection. He wrote:

Forest protection is not an end in itself; it is a means to increase and sustain the resources of our country and the industries which depend on them.

Forestry is the business of making sure that happens. National forests involve a partnership between government and industry. In the case of wood production, the Forest Service hires foresters to see that forests are managed to sustain growth and yield, which includes planned, periodic harvests carried out by timber companies.

Roosevelt said, Forestry is the preservation of forests by wise use . . . Forestry does not mean abbreviating that use; it means making the forest useful . . . . A lawyer from a radical group called “Earthjustice” refers to this policy as “rape and pillage.”

Our forest policy, under Roosevelt and all Presidents, until Clinton, allowed ranchers, miners and timber harvesters access to these public lands to convert our natural resources into products useful to all Americans.
The Bush administration has proposed a liberal compromise to those who demand we stop using our national forest lands. Its proposal gives state governors a part in the process to decide for or against use. This executive rule would end the uncertainty about these lands caused by pending lawsuits resulting from the Clinton order to prevent the use of 58 million acres. Supporters of the Bush rule say it would also put decisions about land use closer to the interests of local people—consistent with our democracy.

Predictably, preservationists came out of the woodwork to provide incorrect press headlines, such as, “biggest timber industry giveaway in history.” Timber companies pay for the wood they harvest and are required to make land improvements, such as building roads, which provide access for recreation and protection against fires. And large timber sales on these forests have been carried out for generations.

Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, whined that western states would take advantage of the proposed rule to help rural economies. Well, fine. They should have the right to use forest land for its intended purpose.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) agrees with the preservationist’s views. Unbelievably, he said, “Shifting the responsibility of federal forests to the states is a risky and absurd policy . . . .” Why? Because he doesn’t trust the “whims” of governors. Our Constitution gives Congress the power to make “Rules and Regulation” respecting U.S. property, but it doesn’t preclude “Claims” of the states.

Some governors, representing their state interests, will petition for preservation, some will opt for management. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would close 1.1 million federal forest acres to use in his state. In Idaho, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne would allow land management to reduce wildfire hazards and improve elk habitat on 9.3 million acres.

Of course, governors will not have complete control. If they do not offer a proposal for use or preservation of a forest area, the Forest Service will have plans appropriate for each national forest. Still, these plans call for development on only 40 percent of the land locked up under the Clinton administration.

However this proposal comes down, it is clear that our federal forests established for multiple uses to benefit us all, are increasingly coming under political pressure from a selfish few who demand the land be put in their personal lock box.