<< Start of Forwarded message via Prodigy Mail >>
From: Jonathan Adler
Subject: Re: Briefing Book
Date: 09/18
Time: 08:57 AM
Return-Path: jadler@cei.org
Received: from router.cei.org (router.cei.org [206.181.102.2]) by
pimaia3w.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA18920 for
<david_reynolds@prodigy.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:55:34 -0400
Received: from mike.cei.org (pc19.cei.org [206.181.102.21]) by router.
cei.org (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA13929 for
<david_reynolds@prodigy.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:00:31 -0400
Message-ID: <323FF1F2.7049@cei.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:58:26 -0400
From: Jonathan Adler <jadler@cei.org>
Organization: cei
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DAVID B REYNOLDS <david_reynolds@prodigy.com>
Subject: Re: Briefing Book
References: <199609180235.WAA16264@mime2.prodigy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DAVID B REYNOLDS wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Adler:
>
> Please see the attached article below (excuse the waste of bytes
if
> you already have the information).
I've seen all these arguments before, and most of them miss the boat.
Some key facts:
- Timber sales on federal lands are conducted by a bidding process,
and
prices are typically comparable to those paid on state or private
lands;
- The roads constructed for timber sales are built to standards far
higher than logging requires. In fact, most timber roads built with
our
tax dollars are one-step away from highway standards. This costs
tremendous amounts of money, but does not provide the timber
industry
with additional economic benefits. Rather, it allows the Forest
Service
to avoid returning more money to the treasury and subsidizes
recreation.
Paved forest roads are of primary benefit to bikers and other
recreationists, not loggers.
- According to the Forest Service's own numbers, the disparity
between
economic benefits provided and user fee revenues is greatest in the
case
of recreation, and virtually no-existent in the case of timber. ( I
believe this is covered in the recreation subsidy item on our page.)
- The Sierra Club's answer to all this is a zero-cut policy on all
forest service lands. This would be an economic AND environmental
disaster. As research by Donald Leal at PERC, and others have shown,
many of these lands can be used productively for timber without
compromising environmental quality and without costing the taxpayer
a
dime. The problem is forest service inefficiency and bureaucratic
inertia.
For more on this I would refer you to Different Drummer, put out by
forest economist Randall O'Toole, and Don Leal of the Political
Economy
Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, MT. I believe both have web sites.
Yours,
JHA
--Jonathan H. Adler Director of Environmental Studies Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1250 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/331-1010 - fax: 202/785-1815 e-mail: jadler@cei.org http://www.cei.org
<< End of Forwarded message >>