What 'our forests' really means
Many statements are heard these days supporting state management of "our forests." Our forests refers to our National Forests - and locally, to the Idaho Panhandle Forests.
Addressing this issue requires one first to examine the twisted semantics used by proponents of this idea. The key words are "our" and "forests." Proponents of state management use "our" to mean the local population of North Idaho or possibly the residents of Idaho. In fact, these are our national forests by law. In the enabling legislation creating the national forests, the meaning of "our" is clear. Our means the people of the country. An individual living in Indiana or Kansas has just as great a stake in our national forests, including those of the Panhandle, as this North Idaho resident living in Kootenai County. Americans have an expectation of national forests in states that have little or no forests as much as I do living less than a mile from a national forest. These forests are their treasure and mine as well as all Americans.
The second issue of semantics is the word "forests." Both law and the natural science of ecology define a forest far more broadly than would the advocates of state management of our forests. The law (National Forest Management Act) defines forests more broadly in terms of a range of forest uses expected. The science of ecology defines the forest in terms of a broad assembly of living organisms and biological interrelationships that exist between these. Forests, to those proposing state management, really means tree farms.
Should the national forest be given over to the state, the state would be constitutionally required to manage that forest for one value - timber production, as it does all other state forest land. Forest users, other than tree harvesters, would be hurtled back to the dark days of the 1950s, '60s and '70s when timber was king and all other forest uses took a back seat at best or were abused at worst. The undeniable evidence for this management is on the ground in every 16th and 36th section given over to state management and in the Floodwood and Priest State Forests.
Some submit state management would create jobs. It might for a time, but the national forests of North Idaho were pretty much cut out by the early 1990s. A colleague of mine at that time who formerly worked in planning for the Forest Service returned one day from a visit to his former office and announced that "the cupboard was bare" to describe the inventory of harvestable land on the Panhandle Forests. The cutting excess of the previous decades was not replaced by promises of second growth nearly fast enough. Natural systems have their own time tables that often do not coincide with human schemes. So the boom-bust cycle all long-time northwesterners know is perpetuated.
The other proponents of a shift from national forest to state management are those wishing unlimited access to the forest. There is indeed unlimited access to the forest, just not the unlimited motorized access these folks desire. These proponents seem blissfully ignorant of the state constitutional requirement to maximize return from state lands for the school fund. One cannot maximize timber dollar returns to the state by managing roads and trail systems that require investment and maintenance. Tree farms discourage access that can harm soil and trees. This fact is precisely why timber companies and the state restrict access. Should these facts be discovered, will we hear new cries from this group for county-owned forests? The irony is that those wishing motorized access to the forests are getting the best deal now from the Forest Service, but it is a deal they must share with other users and other resource management requirements.
The National Forest system was set aside for all Americans and we all have an equal stake in our forests. The foresight to save these lands as forests for all was that of one of our greatest leaders, Teddy Roosevelt. If he had not foreseen the need, and exercised his authority on behalf of all Americans, we would not be having this debate. You can look west to threadbare Mica (Signal) Peak, managed as a private tree farm, to see how our forest lands would appear had national forests not been created. The state does little better due to the constitutional straightjacket governing its forest lands.
The forest scape up on Mica Peak is not the vision most people have for our national forests. We should be investing in our national forests and the agency that manages them, while insisting they be managed in a balanced manner as forests, not tree farms.
Geoff Harvey is a Hayden Lake resident.