
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, March 10, 1994                   TAG: 9403120004
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-12   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: By JOHN R. MARTIN
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SIX DECADES OF SUCCESS IGNORED

I READ with interest James E. Loesel and Charles A. Blankenship's Feb. 5 letter to the editor, ``Multiple-use philosophy governs forest management.'' They state that their letter isn't an argument against timber harvesting and claim that the national forests should be managed under a philosophy called ``multiple use.''

I agree with the philosophy of multiple-use management of these lands. However, if Loesel believes and supports such a philosophy, why has he filed appeals on each timber sale proposed on the Glenwood Ranger District of the Jefferson National Forest? Many timber sales he's appealed are sales to salvage timber killed by the southern pine beetle. He's never filed appeals on other management projects on this or other ranger districts. Others from the environmental community have filed appeals on timber sales on other ranger districts. Could it be he has another objective in mind?

These appeals cost the U.S. Forest Service thousands of dollars while such appeals only cost the appellant the price of a postage stamp. The cost of analysis and settlement of timber-sale appeals count against the timber program, according to the General Accounting Office. This adds to the issue of ``below cost'' timber sales.

Loesel and Blankenship forget that the timber program returns 40 cents to 50 cents on each dollar invested, while other national forest programs return from zero to 10 cents on each dollar invested. I'm led to believe that the main objective is to eliminate timber sales from the national forests, even though laws passed by Congress permit such activity. From the record, it's hard to believe they support multiple-use management of these public lands.

They ignore the multiple-use accomplishments of U.S. Forest Service foresters over the past six decades. In that time, trees have increased tenfold, most species of wildlife have been returned abundantly to protected watersheds, and recreation and trails have been established. These are accomplishments of foresters!

Their statement about the Jefferson plan's leading to clearcut harvesting of 50,000 acres in 20 years is false. Last year, 789 acres were clearcut, about one-tenth of a percent of the forest!

They were correct that, in the past, fire, insects and disease kept early successional tree species prevalent on the forest. Fire was probably the most important factor. Are they proposing that we let fires burn, as was done in the Yellowstone Park disaster? Is our forest resource so abundant that we should allow dead and dying timber to go to waste? They seem satisfied that oak, our most valuable wildlife tree species, will be reduced by gypsy moth. None of these seems to be an option for good stewardship.

John R. Martin of Covington is a forester and a member of the Appalachian Forest Management Group.

by CNB