Chopping Wood

Congress should cut subsidies and stop making special exceptions for the logging industry.

AFTER A FOREST fire, is it better to cut down the remaining trees or leave them standing? Perhaps not surprisingly, neither science nor economics has come up with a definitive answer to this question: It depends on what's meant by the word "better." Something that is better for timber companies may not be better for preventing future fires -- or vice versa. And experts disagree: Many of the nation's forest scientists and firefighters believe logging and replanting recently burned forests increases the risk of another forest fire and harms wildlife. Others point to studies showing the opposite to be true.

All of which causes us to question those in the House pushing a bill that promotes more rapid logging of burned forests. It's certainly not urgent, since at the moment, some 34 percent of the timber produced in this country already comes from burned forests, and all sides agree that the Forest Service often acts responsibly in such cases. This measure would merely facilitate post-fire logging, particularly in roadless areas and other places where the rules are tougher; it would allow projects to go forward faster, with fewer environmental regulatory barriers. Given that the environmental consequences of such logging are so little understood, this change seems not only unncessary but potentially dangerous.

But then, forest policy is rarely governed by anything resembling environmental caution or economic logic, as the looming annual fight to cut off funding for logging in Tongass National Forest is about to illustrate. In 2004 the House passed an amendment to an Interior Department spending bill blocking this massive subsidy, which costs taxpayers $40 million annually, requires road construction in a pristine forest and serves mainly to support the livelihoods of some 300 Alaskans. In 2005 that amendment was blocked on procedural grounds, but now Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and Robert E. Andrews (D-N.J.) are planning to offer it again. The House should vote in favor of the amendment, and, pending further study, against rapid logging of burned forests.