Whose Promised Land?
Our children’s or distant stockholders’?
by Clyde Hanson, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club North Star Chapter
Some of our state legislators claim they’re leading us to the “Promised Land” by trading state land in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness for 15-25 percent of the federal timber land of the Superior National Forest. If we follow them, our children will actually end up wandering in an unnatural aspen desert and getting less funding for their education.
Land trade advocates claim these state lands have not contributed to the economy of the area since being designated wilderness. But tell that to the booming businesses in portal towns like Ely. Wilderness has become a dependable economic base for our region.
Some advocates claim logging volume has declined. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) data shows volume has been steady for the last five years after tripling since 1975. Recent job losses in the paper mills are due to lower demand for paper, not bottlenecks in wood supply.
Perhaps some mills would save trucking costs if a trade would allow non-federal foresters to exceed sustained yields levels of logging nearby the mills. But this benefit goes to the global shareholders of the paper and chip mills, not our communities.
Let’s look at the big picture:
- A trade would reduce federal “payments in lieu of taxes” made to our counties. This is “in lieu” of us paying, so a trade would increase our property taxes or reduce local road maintenance and healthcare.
- A trade would reduce the good Forest Service jobs and local purchases by the Superior National Forest that are now bringing some of our federal tax dollars back home. A smaller national forest means a smaller flow of federal dollars to our region.
- A trade would add little additional logging. This national forest is already logged heavily. With lower environmental standards perhaps state foresters could squeeze out a few more cords, but at a real cost to good fishing, hunting and scenic beauty.
Moreover, the state foresters don’t have the budgets that the feds do for restoring these lands to their native grandeur—more white pine, jack pine and spruce; less aspen; and more old growth. The state’s budget for white pine restoration was already zeroed out last year. And lots of restoration work is still needed to ensure that our native wildlife and recreation economy are sustained. Another cycle of clearcuts let go to aspen could foreclose the restoration option forever.
Our national forests share gross logging revenues (before expenses) with local schools and counties. The proposed trade would shift the net timber profits (after paying DNR costs and overhead) to the state Permanent School Trust, which is allocated to schools based on enrollments. So the trade would shift school funds from northern Minnesota to Edina and from schools to DNR overhead. This is another clue that their “Promised Land” is for mill shareholders and not for our children.
There is a better solution than a land trade: a purchase. Revenues from oil and gas leases on federal land have been set aside by Congress for buying land for public purposes. Minnesota has not gotten its share of these funds. The money needed to purchase the state lands in the wilderness would be a tiny fraction of this federal fund. Representative Oberstar has the clout to make it happen and Senators Dayton and Coleman want to help our region. A purchase is very doable.
This would be a double win for Minnesota students—one-time proceeds of a sale invested in trust for schools forever, and enjoyment of working forests with more wildness and natural integrity. Given past results, investing sale proceeds in stocks and bonds would produce significantly higher returns than timber sales for our schools.
Federal purchase of these state lands provides more school funding, good Forest Service jobs, lower property taxes, federally-funded forest restoration, and a more sustainable quality of life for future generations. Now that’s a real Promised Land for our children.