« Review of Notice of Intent - Part I | Main | Oil & Gas Co. sues county for back taxes »
October 06, 2003
Scare tactics from the Allegheny Forest Alliance
Now that all four counties within the Allegheny National Forest will be receiving secure payments instead of 25% of timber receipts, timber industry apologists are using blatant scare tactics to discredit the decision by the county commissioners.
Jack Hedlund, Executive Director for the Allegheny Forest Alliance, said:
"The problem (in selecting the secure payments) lies with the sunset issue after four years and the comfort with a guaranteed payment, which is likely not to continue after that time."
How does Mr. Hedlund know that the payments will not continue after four years? It is one thing to speculate but to say "likely not to continue after that time", that is baiting. Mr. Hedlund and the AFA will spend the next 4 years scaring people into thinking that Washington is going to strip away the funding for this program which is actually unlikely to happen.
Another misrepresentation by the paper:
Until several years ago, the local share had simply been 25 percent of annual timber receipts. But as timber harvesting and receipts dropped drastically, chiefly as a result of litigation which slowed or halted many timber sales, the Forest Service has given municipalities the option of accepting a flat guaranteed "safety net" payment, or taking the chance that the 25 percent figure will bring in more revenue.
There, of course, is no mention that in 1995, the Forest Service reduced their Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) by nearly half due to poor regeneration success under the even-aged management regime to promote black cherry. Also, market conditions are not that great and foreign competition continues to outstrip American viability in this great new "global economy".
Also not mentioned in relation to the halted or slowed timber sales is the fact that the Forest Service was breaking the law.
Isn't journalism supposed to cover both sides of the issue?
Posted by Ryan at October 6, 2003 11:28 AM
Comments
It gets even worse than you say. Hedlund suggests that the quantity of logging is the primary influence of payments. But a review of the last two decades suggests that market prices are even more important. In fact, as the quantity of black cherry cut increases, its market value tends to decrease which not only hurt payment under the old system but privatelandowners as well.
Hedlund is disingenuous when he cites to the expiration of the law. The law expires in four years no matter what choice local counties made. Now, when you look further at the facts you also see that the Allegheny Forest Alliance opposed a guaranteed payment that did not expire after four years - something ADP supported.
What AFA is really upset about is that they can't use the 25% payment as blackmail anymore to force locals who otherwise don't care or are opposed to public lands logging to support the practice. Unfortunately, the AFA has a history of misleading people about these issues and I'm sure they will continue with that.
Posted by: jim k at October 6, 2003 03:54 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)