Timber-grizzly compromise is what we need

I read a few months ago on the Daily Inter Lake front page that Chuck Roady, vice president and general manager of F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber, went to Washington, D.C., to testify before the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources with Rep. Steve Daines in attendance.

Chuck’s beef was on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition that there is “endless litigation” promulgated by environmentalists and reform proposed by the timber industry is needed for more active management on national forest lands. I disagree.

I have served with Chuck on forest management planning committees in the past and he is a capable spokesman for the timber industry. We could never agree on the huge issue of defending the natural national forest habitat of the grizzly bear under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act versus getting the bear out of the way so timber could be harvested that produced jobs.

After serious debate, we both had to agree to disagree and could never resolve that issue.

My point to be made today is that if a qualified cost accountant (MBA) was to do a detailed analysis of the past 10 years, he might well find that a lot of money has been lost by Stoltze for digging in their heels and not being willing to compromise on the issue.

Insistence on clouding the issue with calls for removal of the grizzly bear from being protected in national forests in order to harvest trees to maintain forest health has proven to be a counter-productive strategy for Stoltze’s bottom line.  Environmentalists have always been willing to compromise on ecologically scientific removal of fire hazardous beetle-kill dead tree infestations, along with slash removal, and judicious selection of harvesting some small trees along with some old tree growth in healthy forests, as long as no clear-cutting is allowed.

The big, more fire-retardant trees produce profitable board feet of lumber, while the thin, less fire-retardant trees can be chipped for producing less profitable particle board.

Scare tactics that monstrous forest fires will result if the timber industry does not get its way to harvest timber as they see fit is also counter-productive. The general public is wising up to the fact that global warming is the real root cause of forest wildfires.  It is an atmospheric carbon-dioxide problem, not a protected grizzly-bear habitat problem.

I have often called for switching over the no longer needed farm subsidies, to be used to subsidize the timber industry for losses in profit due to selective harvesting of timber, but only under the auspices of biologists instead of foresters. That idea always fell on deaf ears… and was replaced with false claims of environmentalists being frivolous litigators and the timber industry being the good stewards of the land. So here we are 10 years later with no progress ever made.

It is time for a long overdue compromise...that does not necessitate harming grizzly bears.

Baum is a resident of Martin City.