Waste of Alaska's Timber
By E. S. Ilungerford
Forest experts estimate that
seven hundred million feet of
timber may be cut annually
from the Alaska forests without
the least danger of depleting
ihe supply. No one, to my .know
'edge, has given any estim ie of
the loss suffered annually from
rot. But it may reasonably be
assumed that it is equal to the
potential production capo city
less the amount utilized.
When the industries of Alaska
market or utilize less than that
amount, we are wasting- not
conserving’, our national re
sources. During the past twenty
years, despite the increase of de
mand and improvement in
methods of handling we have
utilized less than one fourteenth
of our potential capacity.
I wish to go most emphatical
ly on record as saying that it is
not the quality of our timber, nor
our geographical situation, but
the Forest Service which is re
sponsible for this waste.
There is a market and a pro
fitable market for 50 per cent
of our timber today in sufficient
volume to keep pace with pro
duction. It is a market which
our mill men and loggers stand
willing to expoit for the benefit
of themselves and Alaska. It is
a market independent of pulp
mills, a much higher priced
market. The returns from which
would be spent 100 per cent in
Alaska.
It may reasonably be asked:
‘ Why have we not been profit
ing by this market?”
The answer is not flattering,
nor do I take any pleasure in
trying to make the matter clear
to the vision of men and wo
men not acquainted with the
timber business. I feel like a
man who is stirring up a filthy
mess with a stick, with the idea
that my fellow citizens may see
fit to offer a hand in its removal,
l justify my actions by the sam
ple statement: Filthy messes
breed disease.
Cancerous growths on our
tody politic are the business of
every American citizen and call
for serious consideration. If we
do not treat the growths in their
earlier stages, they become deep
rooted and dangerous. They may
not be immediately fatal but
they are weakening, painful and
remain always a source of worry
and danger Our Forest Depart
ment in the administration of
tire national conservation pro
gram here in Alaska is badly in
need of a good, big dose of the
sc rum of common sense .
Conservation may be likened
to a cold. Doctors tell us that
they are really dcsireable in one
way; they relieve the system of
a lot of impurities. But let it
Dre COldS petdle in vonr ]rmcrc
li.ke the Forest Department has
settled hero in Southeastern A
•aska. and it becomes a case of
pneumonia, which calls for seri
ous medical attention. But let us
get back to the subject of trees.
Our millmen can go out and
get orders for various items of
mill produce. Profitable orders,
or at least they should be pro
fitable. The margin for manu
facture at a profit is ample. Our
loggers can go out and get orders
for logs for export, at a price
considerably above what they
are selling their logs for locally.
Why then can they not
prosper?
Our representatives put the
Forest Department in charge of
our national forests to insure an
economical and helpful admin
isteration in the broader sense.
They put under its control all,
or practically all, of the land in
Southeastern Alaska. On this
land stands a virgin forest prac
tically 100 per cent ripe and
ready to cut. Owing to climatic
conditions, a peculiar condition
of affairs prevail in this forest.
Forest fires are practically un
known.
We would naturally suppose
tliat an organization of such
broad-minded experts would
have seen the crying need of
marketing this deteriorating
timber and the putting of the
land to work producing a new
crop. In fact, I have been told
by individuals in the Service,
that the sooner the land was
put to work growing a new crop,
tire better the forestry practice.
These are individuals, however.
How has the Forest Service
met the test?
They have succeeded in kill
ing off the healthy, growing mill
business which was already es
tablished when they took charge.
They have done this by estab
lishing a vicious cycle in the
name of “conservation.” They
have kept public sentiment
smoothed down by promises of
great activity and profits from
pulp mills, just around the corn
er. They have excused and ac
counted for the failure of our
sawmills and helped their down
fall by seme of the most flag
rantly untruthful and mislead
ing propaganda that has ever
been written.
Their chief propagandist, B
F. Heintzleman, is fond of refer
ring to the “Pulp Forest of
Southeastern Alaska,” giving
thereby the general impression
of cheapness or inferiority I am
not a trained Forestry Expert,
nor do I put myself up as such.