Page 16 RAIN November 1981 vest calculations. Practices such as genetic improvement and fertiliz~tion are also added to the calculations. There have been no longterm studies done on the effects on conifer growth to substantiate these claims, nor are any negative impacts accounted for in the ACE factor. ACE is calculated not only on increased growth of seedlings, but on reforestation methods; 100 percent of the trees planted are assumed to survive in calculations for yield projections. Recent research by Groundwork, a non-profit forestry research organization in Eugene, Oregon, refutes this assumption. The group notes that full stocking may be the exception father than the rule. "It's possible that by age three or four only 50 percent or less of the seedlings planted on the site will have survived." Harold Horowitz, a Groundwork staff member, comments that "allowable cuts based on assumed benefits, rather than actual measurement of conifer growth after treatment . . . adversely affect the concept of 'sustained yield,' and in the long run could damage the economic stability of rural communities and the entire·forest products industry in the region." The economic impact of the ACE and alternatives to herbicides have received mixed reviews. Paul Merrell, long-time activist with CATH (Citizens for Alternatives for Herbicides; Washington) and a member of the steering committee for the National Veterans' task force on Agent Orange, points out that the projected ACE directly translates into jobs. "What they have done is pumped up the allowable cuts before they've even got the stuff sprayed, on the expectation that they are going to get to spray and that it's going to work. What they're saying, without coming right out and saying it is: 'Hey, we've already raised·that allowable cut, we've already got it set artifically high, and if you call us on that we're going to have to reduce ~he size of the allowable cut, and all these people will be out of work." ' The Oregonians for Food and Shelter (OFS), a pro-herbicide educa~ional organization with financial ties to the forestry industry, projects that the aerial ban of forest sprely applications, combined with additional ground application restrictions, would cost Oregon's economy $159-$282 million annually. "Job loss in Oregon, even after accounting for the increased use of manual labor, would amount to 3,276 to 5,923 jobs." Figures cited by opponents contradict this bleak scenario. The California Economic Development Department determined that hiring the people to do manual work in lieu of spraying would increase the production costs of timber by less than one percent (Who's Poisoning America). Research by Groundwork supports this conclusion: "If preference were given to alternatives to aerial treatment where feasible, a drastic reduction in aerial sprayed acreage would result, with little to no loss of timber yield. Inf act timber yield would probably be higher [my emphasis] because the more specific treatment methods are also more productive in the long run." Another widely held contention, one promoted by OFS, is that there are no practical alternatives to herbicides. "For reasons of costs, job loss, ineffectiveness and job safety, manual alternatives to herbicides in forest management are considered unworkable." Research and experience by forestry workers seems to indicate otherwise: •A pilot project by GOATS (Group for Organic Alternatives to Toxic Spraying), a forestry collective in Northern California, and the Forest Service determined that manual brush clearing is a costeffective alternative to herbicides in addition to creating jobs when a variety of tasks such as stream clearance and erosion control are , done in addition to conifer release. • Rick Kovens, a member of a reforestry cooperative in Oregon and coordinator of Northwest Forestry Workers Association, challenges the notion of exorbitant costs for manual release. Manual methods, he asserts, have proven quite moderate and, jf anything, have dropped in costs. Chemical preparations, on the other hand, have increased in cost. In response to criticisms of high health risks for manual methods; NWFWA claims th.at over a four-year period "they . . . experienced no partial, total, temporary or permanent disability." This is in contrast with aerial spraying, which carries the risk of both aviation and the as yet incalculable health risks of herbicides. Jan Newton, an economist and director of research at the Center for Labor and Natural Resources in Eugene, served as economic consultant to the EPA in the area of economic benefits of herbicides. In December of 1979 Jan published the second of a two-part report (see access) analyzing the arguments and data supporting herbicide use. Her conclusion is that the existing body of scientific research on herbicide use, whether due to lack of evidence, faulty assumptions, or poor research, does not justify aerial spraying of herbicides on the grounds of cost-effectiveness, increased employment or good forest management. Her controversial report concludes that: • The cost of herbicides are grossly understated and manual costs exaggerated. • "Nary a shred" ·of field evidence exists to prove that aerial application increases conifer growth. •There is no evidence of serious injury or accidents from contrac.t work while, alternatively, "there is some evidence of hazards to workers from entering recently sprayed units." Recognizing both the health hazard as well as the improved employment opportunities that might be gained by switching from chemical to manual forestry methods, the International Woodworkers of America is considering support of legislation (in Oregon) to ban or curtail the use of herbicides. Alternatives to present harvest techniques currently exist and are ~eing tested. According to estimates by NCAP (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides), in the past few years about $1,000,000 worth of work has been awarded by public agencies for alternatives to herbicides primarily for cutting or pulling brush. One unusual example is a three-year study ~urrently under way at Oregon State University, using sheep to remove unwanted brush on a clearcut site. The first results of the study seem to indicate success. A growing number of concerned forestry workers and foresters Wht'n should this tree have bern rut 7 <a' econo.m le maturity 'b' productive maturity From: Tree Talk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz