Natural Resources Council of Maine Supports Question 2 - Press Release
Other information in this news release:
Environews
from Maine's leading environmental voice
The Natural Resources Council of Maine
Date: September 28, 2000
Contact: Cathy Johnson, Brownie Carson, 622-3101 X 206, cellphone (9/28) 242-2780
Natural Resources Council Announces Support
for Forestry Referendum
“We support Question #2”
Today, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Maine’s leading environmental advocacy group, announced their support for Question #2, the forestry referendum that will be on the ballot November 7. As part of their announcement the Council said that after the referendum is enacted they will push for an amendment in the Legislature to exempt all landowners who own fewer than 1,000 acres.
“We support Question 2’s sensible safeguards that ensure that Maine’s forests are not cut down faster than they are growing back and that the practice of clear-cutting is not abused,” said Brownie Carson, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
“The problems in Maine’s forest are serious and well-documented, yet, despite widespread public support, faced with forest industry’s strenuous resistance the Legislature has failed to adopt any meaningful forestry reforms,” said Carson.
Problems in Maine’s forests have been documented by the U.S. Forest Service, the Maine Forest Service and citizen observation over the past decade, including a 1998 Maine Forest Service study that found that the state’s large landowners are cutting trees 37 percent faster than they are growing back. (see attached list)
At news conferences in Bangor and Portland today, the Natural Resources Council cited a dozen recent pieces of legislation (see attached list) designed to improve the health of Maine’s forests that were rejected by the Legislature in the last five years.
“The referendum process was established for situations precisely like this, so citizens can press for policy changes when the normal legislative process has failed,” said Carson.
“Because small landowners are not the cause of the serious over-harvesting in Maine’s forests, after the referendum’s passage we will press the Legislature to provide an exemption for all landowners who own less than 1,000 acres,” said Carson. “Exempting small landowners will focus the bill where the problem lies and will also addresses the claims by opponents that the referendum may lead to sprawl.”
The Natural Resources Council analyzed the intent and language of the referendum, the condition of Maine’s woods, and the options for improving forest management practices in our forests, meeting with both proponents and opponents, to determine the impact that the referendum would have on the health of the Maine’s forests.
Recent polls show strong public support for the forestry referendum, but scare tactics by referendum opponents are making some landowners panic. “Referendum opponents are undoubtedly prepared to spend millions of dollars to scare well-intentioned Mainers into believing their extreme claims,” said Carson. “We are hopeful that the common sense of Maine people will prevail.”
“The language of this referendum, like all laws, is not perfect. The referendum, like any other law, is subject to interpretation and amendment,” said Carson. “The extreme interpretations raised by opponents of the referendum can be addressed, and will be supported by the Governor-appointed Sustainability Council and the Legislature, once citizens have passed the referendum.”
If enacted by Maine voters, the referendum will do three things:
1. Ensure that logging on forest land enrolled in Maine’s Tree Growth Tax Program does not exceed forest growth rates;
2. Require landowners who wish to clear-cut an area greater than five acres to obtain a permit from the Maine Forest Service and show that the clear-cut is scientifically justified, that there are no reasonable alternatives, and that no undue adverse impact will result from the clear-cut; and
3. Direct the Governor to appoint a Maine Council on Sustainable Forest Management to develop specific rules to implement the two provisions above.
-end-
Council Announces Support for Forestry Referendum
Statement by
Brownie Carson, Executive Director, Natural Resources Council of Maine
Today the Natural Resources Council of Maine is announcing our support for the forestry referendum (Question #2) that will be on the November 7th ballot. As part of our support, we are advocating to exempt from the law all landowners who own fewer than 1,000 acres. This exemption will require an amendment to the referendum after it is enacted. We will propose and press for adoption of such an amendment during next year’s legislative session.
Recent studies have clearly documented that the large landowners and paper corporations are the major cause of overharvesting currently underway in Maine’s woods. We do not believe that small woodlot owners, in general, are cutting their forests at an unsustainable pace. Thus, we believe they should be exempted from this proposed law.
The Council has arrived at this position after several months of analysis and deliberation. We looked at the current condition of logging practices in Maine’s woods. We looked at the record of the Maine State Legislature in providing necessary safeguards for Maine’s forests. We listened to citizens who are concerned about the future of Maine’s forests. And we looked at the language of the referendum.
We solicited the opinions of many outside experts, on both sides of this issue, to explore the impact that the referendum’s passage would have on the health of the forests of Maine. Here is what we found.
First, there continue to be serious problems in Maine’s woods that demand attention. Many of the state’s major landowners are continuing to harvest the woods faster than they are growing back. As documented by the Maine Forest Service in 1998, the large landowners are cutting trees 37 percent faster than they are growing back.
Second, the Legislature has completely failed to adopt any meaningful forestry reforms over the past decade. Repeated documentation of ongoing poor forestry practices has proven that the 1989 Forest Practices Act is insufficient, yet the Legislature has failed to take any meaningful action to create a safety net for Maine’s woods.
And its not for lack of opportunities. Proposals to improve forest practices are introduced during essentially every legislative session, but they are always rejected. No matter how minor the proposal, the forest products industry has lobbied hard to defeat it, and has consistently succeeded. The referendum process was established for situations exactly like this, so citizens can press for policy changes when the normal legislative process has failed.
Finally, we found that the proposed referendum can work in a fashion that will help protect Maine’s forests for timber production jobs, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities. Opponents of the referendum have presented apocalyptic scenarios to bolster their position against any additional protections for Maine’s forests.
In envisioning how the referendum would work once enacted into law, it is important to consider the following: 1) the rules to implement the referendum would be developed by a Council appointed by the Governor; 2) these rules would be developed through a public hearing process, providing ample opportunity for input from landowners and all Maine citizens; and 3) the final rules must be approved by the Legislature.
We are confident that this process will yield sensible, workable interpretations of the referendum that would not look anything like the alarmist views currently being articulated by opponents of Question 2. For example, we believe that the process would result in an interpretation, clarification, or legislative amendment allowing landowners to “bank” credits so that they can cut above sustained yield levels some years using credits accumulated during years when they cut below sustained yield levels. The referendum’s drafters, the forest products industry, academic experts, and independent foresters all are on record in support of “banking,” and thus it is inconceivable to us that banking would not be allowed.
The wording of this referendum may not be perfect, but no law ever is - not even the United States Constitution, which has been amended 26 times. Lawmaking is a dynamic process, involving repeated efforts to amend, modify, and improve the rules governing our society. That is the context within which the referendum should be viewed.
We are convinced that serious problems persist in Maine’s woods. We know that the Legislature has failed to take any meaningful action in the last decade to address these problems. Thus, we have concluded that adoption of Question 2 is necessary. With the exemption that we have proposed for landowners owning fewer than 1,000 acres, and with the process in place to make it work, this referendum will make a positive contribution to the protection of Maine’s forests.
We encourage all voters to go to the polls on November 7th and vote "Yes" on Question 2, the forestry referendum.
The Legislature Has Refused to Protect Maine’s Forests
1995 - An Act to Require a Silvicultural Basis for Harvesting That Produces Understocked Stands. (L.D. 1347) Required loggers to leave enough trees to ensure a future forest. REJECTED
1998 - An Act to Provide Public Information on Forest Management Practices. (L.D. 1092) Provided the public with information about how much land commercial timber harvesters were clear-cutting, spraying with herbicides and converting to plantations. REJECTED
1998 - An Act to Establish a Penalty on Gains from the Sale or Exchange of Land from Which Timber Has Been Harvested. (L.D. 1820) Provided tax incentives to limit
“cut-and-run” liquidation harvesting. REJECTED
1998 - An Act to Improve Management of Maine’s Forests. (L.D. 1766, minority report) Required timber companies to cut wood no faster than it is growing, apply for permit for clear-cutting, leave enough trees behind after harvesting to ensure a future forest, and obtain an independent, third party audit. REJECTED
1998 - An Act to Require Recommended Silvicultural Stocking Standards on Land Ownerships Enrolled under the Tree Growth Tax Laws. (L.D. 968) Required landowners who receive a Tree Growth Program tax benefit to leave enough trees behind after harvesting to ensure a future forest. REJECTED
1998 - Resolve, to Establish the Maine Council on Sustainable Silviculture. (L.D. 1395) Created a Council to recommend measurable standards to protect Maine’s water, soil, wildlife, sustainable timber supply and forest health. REJECTED
1998 - An Act to Reform the Maine Tree Growth Tax Laws. (L.D. 1200) Required landowners who own more than 1,000 acres and who receive a Tree Growth Program tax benefit to cut wood no faster than it is growing and to leave enough trees after harvest to ensure a future forest. REJECTED
1998 - An Act to Limit Liquidation Harvesting. (L.D. 1465) Required loggers to leave enough trees to ensure a future forest. REJECTED
1999 - An Act to Make Public Certain Information Regarding Forest Practices. (L.D. 1144) Provided the public with information about how much land commercial timber harvesters were clear-cutting, spraying with herbicides and converting to plantations. REJECTED
1999 - Resolve, to Address Liquidation Harvesting. (L.D. 2179) A watered down “cut and run” liquidation harvesting study bill. REJECTED
1999 - An Act to Reform the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law. (L.D. 1866) Required landowners who own more than 1,000 acres and who receive a Tree Growth Program tax benefit to not cut the forest faster than it is growing, and to leave enough trees after harvest to ensure a future forest. REJECTED
2000 - An Act to Clarify the Tree Growth Tax Law. (L.D. 1475) Required timber companies who own more than 100,000 acres and receive a Tree Growth Program tax benefit not to cut wood faster than it grows back. REJECTED
(partial list)
>
There Are Serious Problems in Maine’s Forest That Threaten the Future of Maine’s People, Economy and Environment.
A 1998 study by The Maine Forest Service showed that:
· Maine’s biggest timber companies (> 100,000 acres) are cutting down forests 37% faster than they are growing back;
· Even if these large landowners converted one million more acres of Maine to plantations sprayed with pesticides, logging rates would continue to exceed forest growth for at least 40 years;
· Overall Maine forests are being logged at a rate 16% faster than they are growing.
A 1997 Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife report found that:
· Critical wildlife habitats are not adequately protected. For example, deer wintering yards have declined by 70% since 1960, limiting the ability of deer to survive.
The U.S. Forest Service reported significant declines in Maine forests 1982-1995:
· Industry cut trees at twice the rate they grew for all species;
· Cut exceeded growth by 3:1 for red spruce (Maine’s leading conifer species) and the standing volume of red spruce has decline by 28%;
· The area of spruce and fir in stands with trees large enough for commercial harvesting fell by 40%;
· Since 1959, there has been a steady decline in the percent of the highest quality hardwood saw logs;
· Overall, timber volume in Maine forests dropped 12%.