Posted on 07/28/2013 9:36:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Environmental activists constantly pressure government agencies to intervene in the lives of others, whether it is telling them how to run their businesses, where they can build their homes, or what types of food they can and cannot eat, among countless other examples.
Another area activists are increasingly focusing on is forest management, telling tree farmers how they should manage their land. Common sense would tell you that a one-size-fits-all system of land management would not fit the diverse landscapes of the U.S., in terms of climate, elevation, and many other variables.
Unfortunately, common sense is not that common among those with the loudest voices on this issue.
Last year, we wrote about the detrimental effects of a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) monopoly in timber markets, and its negative impact on consumers and entrepreneurs around the world. Since that time, additional research has shown the real financial costs resulting from such a framework.
A study released last month by EconoSTATS at George Mason University concludes that forcing the preferred land management program of environmental activists –the FSC – would lead to over 40,000 job losses in Oregon and Arkansas alone.
Another report released last year by the American Consumer Institute quantified the economic loss in wood products and paper markets if FSC were made a controlling requirement for American forests. The study put these amounts at a staggering $10 billion for wood products and $24 billion for paper products markets. It follows, as night follows day, that such a steep reduction in commerce leads to massive job losses.
Both government policies and non-market pressures from activists seek to promote FSC at the expense of competing programs, such as the American Tree Farm System (ATFS) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which combined certify tens of millions more acres of land in America than FSC.
The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) “LEED” rating system, for example, exclusively awards its ‘certified wood’ credits to FSC timber. With the rapid growth of LEED-certified buildings nationwide, a majority of our forest products businesses are getting unnecessarily obstructed or blocked from participating in more and more projects.
FSC’s activist allies constantly brag how they intimidate Fortune 500 companies into revising their supply chains or stopping them from stocking their stores with products certified by other credible programs. This limits the customer base for forestry-based businesses and raises prices for consumers.
Such efforts do not help the environment either.
Since FSC certifies 90% of its property outside the U.S., policies that promote its use increase the chances that lumber will be imported from abroad. FSC enforces dozens of different standards across the globe and holds landowners in other nations to far lower standards than it does for American tree farmers. Relatively lower-quality timber from Russia or Brazil can end up displacing American wood in domestic markets. Even Greenpeace, an FSC supporter, is now calling FSC’s credibility into question because of its varied standards.
As the EconoSTATS study stated, “the FSC program imposes large economic costs and greater global environmental degradation unintentionally creating the worst of both worlds. And, due to the labeling requirements, consumers and businesses have no definitive way of knowing the actual conditions under which their FSC certified forest products were harvested.”
It is ironic that FSC supporters promote the program as the alternative to other credible programs, which supposedly represent “big business.” But it is often smaller landowners who often cannot meet FSC’s steep standards in America. If they are denied from choosing other certification programs or the economic returns from ATFS and SFI certification are diminished (as they are in LEED projects), then these landowners could give up certification altogether or even sell their property to developers.
Thinking beyond step one has never been a priority for environmental extremists. But that is no excuse for the rest of us not to do so.
This type of environmental extremism hurts consumers, businesses, and workers – including family farmers, millworkers, woodworkers, carpenters, and truckers – alike. Denying them options in certification markets or entry into green building projects does nothing for the environment or the economy.
It is time for those who understand these facts to inform others, before they get misinformed by people and groups whose job is to misinform. Too many livelihoods are at stake to ignore the detrimental effects of wrongheaded policies that are dressed up in the rhetoric of idealism.
Now, he realizes that the land needs more animals, not less, and has had good success with that way to stop desertification.
The arrogance of land management 'experts' continues to be most impressive.
When we finish logging here we'll start on the other planets.
The whole point of so-called "environmentalism" is to supervise the transfer of the largest possibile quantity of natural resources from those who've invested in land and resources to the "progressive" oligarchy. It's nothing grander than massive, systematic theft by a circuitous route.
If you have ever been to Germany you probably have seen how well kept and managed the forests are. Unless things have changed but for every tree that was cut in a forest 4 or more saplings have to be planted to replace the tree
Desertification proceeds in countries where there is no growing of trees for profit and thus there is no incentive to increase forests.
This was the talk of the late '90s. Bush's "Healthy Forests Initiative" was supposed to fix it. LOL, I was telling Jeff Flake back then that it was going to be the Healthy Lawyers' Initiative, which it certainly turned out to be. Of course, when he appointed AFPA lobbyist to run the Forest Service there was no doubt that it was going to be more of the same.
Guess who gets to log while the National Forests burn? Why, it's the same people who flattened those forests in the first place! The beneficiaries of this illegal taking from the States have been eastern banking families that own large timber companies, particularly the Weyerhaeusers. Ain't fascism wonderful?
We just had a 138,000 acre fire in the wilderness near here. They took the cattle off years ago and the game followed and it grew up into an unmanaged tangle of growth. Whatever they think they protected went up in smoke.
It has already improved our watershed, the water is coming down the river instead of being consumed by useless plant matter.
We had a neighbor rancher whose ranch had some rare falcon. They made him cover his troughs so they wouldn’t drown and when it came time for the baby birds to hatch they made him take the cattle off the pasture. Guess what...the falcons abandoned their nests and followed the cattle.
The Nature Conservancy bought a huge ranch and immediately took all the cattle off of it, the game left voluntarily, lol.
Cattle keep their little trails beaten out which prevents the thick underbrush. They kick up mice and small game for the hawks, falcons and eagles. They keep the grass grazed so it is growing fresh tender feed.
That is how the sierra club wiped out 40% of the High Sierra Pines. One size fits all legal obstruction. Drought + Sierra Club = Massive bug kills. Physically, the worst thing that every happened to the Sierras, was the Sierra Club.
That is exactly what the land management guy I mentioned came to realize. The high weeds took more of the water and nutrients out of the ground, and the loss of the cattle fertilizer diminished the nutrients further.
What law was that?
And HOW did it affect forestry practices?
Sorry, an obvious typo. Should’ve been “low.”
Tell me about it! We had 100s of thousands of acres burn in my county a few years ago, couldn’t breathe for the whole summer.
Even worse, the environazis filed suit after suit to prevent any cost effective logging in the burned areas.
The only way they could cut and remove the timber was with hand crews and helicopters. No logging roads allowed because of the potential runoff into the creeks and rivers (as though it didn’t happen any way), so no dead timber harvest, just wasn’t cost effective.
Now we have hundreds of thousands of acres of dead wood standing, just waiting for a spark in the right place to destroy the rest of the surrounding forest in one massive fire storm.
Thank you Sierra Club and USFS, YOU IGNORANT ASSES.
We had 40 jungle acres in Montana once. Right when I bought it I called the neighbor and let him graze his cattle and horses. Cleaned it right up and made it useable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.