Customer Reviews

A Burning Issue: A Case for Abolishing the U.S. Forest Service (The Political Economy Forum)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

After reading this I would highly recommend looking up some of the books by Stephen J. Pyne. He doesn't offer any answers but defines some of the problems in a rather succinct manner.

With nearly 5 billion acres ablaze out West this summer, Nelson's book is well-timed if poorly thought out. His thesis is that the Forest Service should be abolished entirely and he's being funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a "shill tank" for less government and more big business profiteering -- to say as much. The problem is that the REAL problem (as Nelson admits) is too much fire suppression for too long out west. Nelson argues that a "fuel buildup" out west requires more "mechanical thinning," (i.e. logging for private profit on public lands). In reality, however, mechanical thinning is simply too expensive to do the job, while proscribed fires require a LARGER Forest Service budget to be effectively managed. It's hard to read Nelson's book without seeing it as being little more than a clever stalking horse: an industry-funded case statement for more rape and ruin of the forest. A visit to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's web site (one of Nelson's employers) makes it clear they have never seen an environmental or public health law they liked. Nelson's book is less a case statement for forest protection than it is for continued massive subsidies for industry exploitation of public land. When Nelson says "mechancial thinning" will not pay for itself, he is really calling for massive public subsidies of the timber industry. When Nelson advocates "recovering" lost revenue from "thinning" the forest, he is really advocating chopping down healthy forests for commercial purposes. Bottom line: this book blows a lot more smoke than any of the fires out west. We need more science and less "forest liar" propaganda.

Excerpted from a book review by Ronald N. Johnson in the Independent Review (Fall 2001)

In A Burning Issue, Robert Nelson argues that the U.S. Forest Service is demoralized within and besieged from without by a wide array of interest groups. He attributes this sorry state of affairs to the Forest Service's inability to define its mission in a time of rapidly changing values in American society. His solution to this predicament is to abolish the agency.

"The leading policy issue today on the national forest system--issues that demonstrate the inability of the current Forest Service to deal with the basic problems of the national forests--revolve around forest fire and its ecological consequences." Federal fire policy has sought to eliminate fire, but has instead merely changed its time and place. Wildfires have gone from being high-frequency, low-intensity events, which sustained certain ecosystems, to low-frequency, high-intensity fires prompting costly suppression attempts that have often proved futile.

According to Nelson, a variety of interest groups have converged to sustain the fire-suppression policy. There is litle question that interest groups shape policies and political behavior, but Nelson's book would not win high praise from academics for its application of public-choice concepts. Although Nelson may have correctly identified the underlying interest groups, he does not offer evidence to support his claims about their politicking. However, such an analysis is not his objective. Rather, he seeks to make the case not only that Forest Service fire policy, along with reductions in timber harvests, has been a costly mistake, but that the alternative approach advocated by many so-called environmentalists is also fraught with contradictions and costs.

Although I concur with Nelson's recommendation to abolish the Forest Service, I think it is an unlikely outcome, and his intermediate or short-run proposal offers only limited benefits. Nevertheless, his book should be required reading for all students of government, not only those concerned with Forest Service policy, because it provides an excellent source in any attempt to understand the consequences of allowing a governmental agency to become so buffeted by competing pressure groups that it loses direction and becomes an even more costly entity.

The recent wildfires in New Mexico and Colorado are a painful illustration of the costs of federal land management. America's National Parks and National Forests are in disarray; millions of acres are just one spark away from complete conflaguration. Thus, the latest political economy forum book, Robert Nelson's A Burning Issue: A Case for Abolishing the U.s. Forest Service could not be more timely. Nelson, a professor at the University of Maryland (and a former colleague of mine at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) lays out why Smokey the Bear must shoulder much of the blame for turning the national forests into a tinderbox. Political management of the U.S. Forest Service lies at the heart of its current difficulties, Nelson explains. It is not simply a matter of the wrong leadership or wrong institutional mission. Building on his earlier work on federal land management, Nelson shows why neither the progressive era doctrine of "scientific management," nor newer notions of "ecosystem management" or "natural regulation" can solve the current mess. Only a wholesale reconstitution of the forest service's structure and responsibilities will suffice. Indeed, Nelson explains why America's forests, and neighboring communities, would be safer were the forest service eliminated altogether in favor of decentralized forest units directly responsible for their management and care. For the forests' sake, hope that such an approach becomes politically viable before the next fiery maelstrom ignites.

[Note, this review originally appeared as part of my column in the Washington Times.]

Robert Nelson argues that it's time to abolish the U.S. Forest Service. Nelson spent 18 years in the Department of Interior's policy shop, and he knows the issues. His book covers the history of the Forest Service and its policies that lead - to some extent - to this year's devastating Western wildfires. The service has made too many resource management mistakes. It doesn't have the same interest in forestry and grazing management as the people who reside in the areas the service manages. Nelson makes a convincing case that the people with strong local interests in resource management could certainly do no worse than the Forest Service when it comes to preventing devastating fires, so let's give them a chance. As Nelson explains, ecosystem management from on high is used to justify anything the service might want to do, but top the top-down approach doesn't work any longer for resource management. And, as Nelson writes, it's not just the executive branch that needs a new approach. Congress might not know what it's doing, either: "Federal politics is today dominated by national television networks and other media that distort as often as clarify the real forest issues. If decisions for the forests of the West are made in Washington, most democratically elected representatives will be far removed from the places where their decisions take effect. Many members of Congress will have never visited the national forests where their votes will be determining future policy." This book should be assigned to all forestry majors, in colleges everywhere. (Note-I wrote about this book for Timberlinemag.com.)

This is a superb analysis of a once great government agency. Mr. Nelson makes a compelling case for abolishing the Forest Service -- his book merits the thoughtful attention of anyone concerned with the preservation and responsible management of our nation's national forests....this includes the Forest Service itself!