EDITIORIAL

Politicians and the wood pile

E 9R THE first time, politics are beginning to f have a major efl-ect upon the management of this country's public and private forests. The implications from such moves on the supply and cost offorest products are causing concern from forestry to final seller. It appears we'll see more political involvement in the future, not less.

While the Spotted Owl has been the most prominent case to date, politics and politicians are increasingly evident in the equation.

Two examples: In Arkansas, Congressman Tommy Robinson (D-Ar.) is running for governor on a platform including banning of all clear cutting in the huge Ouachita National Forest. Opponents say the effect of such a ban would have serious consequences for area mills and their customers.

In California, often a bellwether for the rest of the U.S., two initiatives have qualified for the November ballot that would have a drastic effect upon wood products output in the country's third largest lumber producing state. A third,

DAVID CUTLER editor-publisher

Proposition 138 sponsored by the state's timber industry, bans old growth clearcutting and would reduce timber harvesting by 150/0.

One of the opposing measures, Proposition 130, would reduce harvesting by 680/0, give government the right to take away privately owned timber property (with no mention of fair compensation) and would provide financial incentives for special interest groups to sue timber companies. The other anti-industry proposition is headed by Tom Hayden, whose sole qualification to manage forestry affairs is that he is the former husband of actress Jane Fonda. If you can figure that one out, please let us know.

The pattern emerging from these various campaigns across America indicates that less qualified people will make politicized decisions resulting in a crimped supply of forest products. The only result possible will be higher costs for everyone.

It's a scary scenario for our industry, but one, we're afraid, we'll all have to learn to live with.