logging, the NEA, and being reasonable
Topics: Democracy
01 May 1991
From: ervan
I saw a piece on MacNeil/Lehr last night (Tuesday) about saving
the Spotted Owl versus saving jobs in the Pacific Northwest. The debate
is centered purely on how to manage National Forest lands, not private
lands. First some bashing, then my point. Bush's secretary of whatever
in charge of the situation has suggested the owls be captured and bred
in captivity so that the rest of the forest can be clear cut. With logic
like that, this man obviously must be trying for a Supreme Court
appointment....
What has happened historically (as I see it) is that certain lands
were set aside as National Forests for the usual reasons. After some
time the logging industry lobbied congress with the following logic:
1) Forests eventually burn down
2) That's a waste of trees that could be used
3) We should be able to log those trees instead.
Instead of adopting the simple and clear doctrine that National Forests
are off limits, congress decided to be 'reasonable' (as Pete would say),
and after appropriate campaign contirbutions, opened National Forests
to logging. The problem is that to keep from selling the
Forests wholesale, leases were offered. These leases are relatively
short, 10 years I believe. Trees do not grow big enough to log in
10 years. Therefore, the logging companies simply want to cut everything
and get out. Which is exactly what they do. The consequence: National
Forests are being decimated. The environment obviously loses. Taxpayers
lose because what belongs to them is being sold without due compensation.
Logging companies are being encouraged to over produce now instead of
saving for the future as they would be more inclined to do if they owned
the land. It's probably not even good for them in the long run. Of course,
given the way congress has set things up, it is in the interest of each
logging company to grab what it can now before the others do and to hell
with the future. Conclusion: the law should be clear & concise, not
'reasonable'.
I think there is an analogy with what happened to the NEA.
Originally, the idea was that art is good therefore art should be funded.
But eventually, congress decided to be 'reasonable' and only fund certain
kinds of art (i.e. the Helms amendment). We all know what the effects of this
were. Even when the NEA was created, conservatives argued against it
on the grounds that it would eventually become a censorship tool. Little
did they realize that they would be the ones using it that way.
In both cases, the nature of the political process caused congress
to carve out an exception to help a particular interest group to the
detriment of everyone else. 'Being reasonable' always works this way.
BTW, I do think National Forests are a good idea whereas the NEA
was conceptually flawed from the beginning, but the analogy holds.
Home