They had a great goal, but they went about it in the wrong way. The timber rights were for sale, but the sale was for selective logging as part of a long-term forest management plan. From that plan:
“the harvest will primarily focus on salvage, thinning and improvement harvesting will also occur. Trees targeted for removal will include those containing severe fire damage, grazing damage, shade tolerant mixed hardwoods on oak-hickory sites, and other trees needed to release higher quality and healthier residual trees…Due to extensive damage resulting from recent insect infestations, past droughts, and wind events, a select salvage harvest is also prescribed for this area. Trees primarily affected and recommended for removal include yellow-poplar, white ash, scarlet oak, and black oak.”
A couple of points to keep in mind are first, the land is not for sale. Some of the timber is. Also, this is not old growth forest. It has been logged in the past, and most of it was farmland, purchased under the depression era “Beanblossom Project” to purchase and rehabilitate spent farmland.
If the conservation group had included in their offer the intention to remove invasive species and trees damaged by beetles, fire or wind, they would at least be participating in the long-term forestry plan.
I am always seriously opposed to harming old growth forest, or any sort of clear cutting. But wood is considered a renewable resource. Logging can be part of an overall plan to improve the health and diversity of forests.
There was and is an enormous problem with illegal logging internationally. It makes sense to have rules to address similar issues in the US. Wired ran an intriguing piece on this just a month or so ago.
I didn’t read the linked article, but this is the critical question. As part of a responsible plan, this could all be required logging to help conservation with the rest of the forest. Not logging it could actually be more harmful than responsible logging.
Lots of deadwood or less healthy trees create other dangers to a forest and the surrounding area. Left alone, nature will eventually deal with this. Probably through large scale fire that will renew the area as a whole eventually. However, that type of event is probably undesirable to the surrounding area.
Responsible logging to help the health of the forest, without the need for letting nature destroy and rejuvenate on it’s own to avoid other impacts of that uncontrolled process sounds very reasonable.
The first question I do not see answered: Was the land being sold or just the right to harvest the trees?
Then: Were there long-term plans for the land once the trees were gone? So that selling this to someone who was going to leave the trees would mess up other plans down the road? Plans that, good or bad, would then have cost the government (i.e. you and me) a lot more money?
I am NOT saying this wasn’t an underhanded move on the government’s part and damn stupid from the sound of it but not enough of the picture is shown.
If the conservation group did not meet the legal requirements, this was just a PR stunt from my point of view or this group is not well run since the info on bidding requirements seems to be easily found in advance.
Had they played the game right, at least they might have cost whoever ended up with the forest a good deal more money.
Uh. It’s state forest. So nobody’s paying taxes on it. Instead, a lumber company which is in a lawsuit over bad practices bought the right to cut 1500 trees and to bulldoze roads and damage the ecosystem around it.
(Would be interesting of the could helicopter harvest.)
You’re not far off. An astroturf PAC made up of pavement and aggregate companies pushing for the new terrain routes for I69 (consistently unwanted by 80% of Hoosiers, and now being built in the most expensive and disruptive possible way) was named something like “The Businessmen’s Association for the Beautification of Rural Indiana”.
The unfortunate fact is most people do. Conservation is most successful when it’s backed by a economic success. Windmills, solar panels, recycling are all big business that make a some people a lot of money. It’s not popular or soul rewarding to think about, and many may not even agree, but it is the western human condition. It has to make money.
So that’s not great. Our socioeconomic crayon box is missing some colors. It’s on us though to be creative with the colors we have. Rejecting the crayons only makes things harder and there a lot of other people drawing.
Since it has been previously logged and farmed, there should be already be logging roads, which will need some work. If the timeline published by the forest service is accurate, that should have already been done. There is a firefighting component to those roads as well.
But honestly, the logging contract is for 1733 trees to be harvested on 300 acres. That averages less than six trees per acre. On land that contains 149 harvestable trees per acre. They also specifically plan to retain “the healthier, larger diameter, and large crown trees.”
I get the impulse to oppose all logging, but that is not always the best practice.
Round these Parts (Northern IL) there’s a temptation to cast any Indiana legislation as bumpkin politicks. Actually, even my family who lives in IN thinks that way. (Granted, my cousin has gotten into a local kerfuffle with a crazy lady who yells, FAGGOT every time she sees him or his husband on the street)
Huh? The BoingBoing article was somewhat misworded, it’s the forestry rights that are for sale, not the land itself. So, no, the $150k is a $40k more for the state.
But after conservationists gathered $150,000 to preserve the forest for another 100 years, the government sold it to a local logging company for $108,785.
But that’s not counting bribes. Who knows how much they really made?
I can appreciate the cynicism but for cynics you’re really not going far enough.
There is no need for bribes in this case.
The logging company just bid more than the other interested parties who were eligible to bid. The only higher bid was from the conservationists who by law are not allowed to bid.
Weirdly enough I think that one actually makes some sort of sense. Especially since the requirements to become a licensed timber buyer don’t appear to be onerous.
