On Jan. 7, 2009, Executive Director Tom Doak gave the following testimony in opposition to cuts in funding for the Department of Conservation contained in Gov. John Baldacci’s proposed Supplemental Budget. The cuts were not made.
Senator Diamond, Representative Cain and members of the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee; Senator Nutting, Representative Pieh and members of the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, I am Tom Doak, Executive Director of the Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM) testifying in opposition to a number of the cuts proposed for the Department of Conservation in the Supplemental Budget.
We are very concerned about the impacts of these proposed cuts to the Department of Conservation’s budget and particularly with those in the Maine Forest Service. We appreciate the challenging budget times we are in, but this department and this bureau deal with Maine’s most important natural resource- the forest. Over the past several years they have taken, in our view, a disproportionate share of budget reductions. As woodland landowners, we have to think long term- trees grow slowly. We know some reductions are inevitable, but we urge you to consider the long-term implications of these cuts.
There are four areas in particular, all in the Maine Forest Service part of the supplemental, of specific concern to us.

Forest Protection Division: While we applaud the agency for looking for the most efficient way of detecting fires, the idea of doing away with aerial detection flights and relying upon “volunteers” is a risky business that deserves serious discussion. After all, we are talking about protection of a resource worth billions to the Maine economy and touches the lives in some way of every Maine citizen. If this is to become reality, we think the public and woodland owners should be aware that fires may go undetected for longer periods and the possibility for larger fires exists. We also believe if implemented, this should be considered a trial and not necessarily a permanent fix.

Part G; G-3. These are the funds that the Maine Forest Service uses to pay for their fire suppression mandate. The funds are in large part the result of saving generated by efficient and responsible management. Taking these would mean that the agency may not have enough money to the meet the costs of fighting forest fires. That possibility is real and should be acknowledged.

Forest Policy and Management. We support the enforcement of the Forest Practices Act. It has helped, along with a number of other factors, to implement fundamental, positive changes to the way the forest is managed. We also support the approach the Maine Forest Service has taken to enforcement and in particular, its proactive work to prevent violations. Landowners and the forest are better off when violations are prevented than dealing with the results after the fact. In addition, we are concerned that the loss of these positions could become an excuse to reopen the Forest Practices Act- either to weaken it or to make it more rigid (black and white)- neither of which we support. Losing the ability to work with landowners in a positive way resulting from the elimination of these positions is short sighted.

Forest Health and Monitoring. We object in the strongest possible terms to the elimination of the forest inventory program. This state was subjected to two forestry referendums costing millions of dollars and having a cooling affect on forestry investments in this state that we have not recovered from, because we didn’t have accurate and timely data about the forest. We understand the plan is to have the US Forest Service (USFS) take over responsibility for the inventory. However, they don’t have a very good track record. Beginning in the 1950’s the US Forest Service was “required” to conduct forest inventories on a ten year cycle. Not once were they able to accomplish that. In at least one case, from the time they began one survey to the time they finished and published the results of the next one, a span of sixteen years passed. With all due respect to the USFS, what they called the decennial survey; we affectionately came to call the centennial survey. There is little evidence, particularly with the economic difficulties on the federal level, that the USFS will be able to complete the surveys on time.

When the Maine Forest Service took over the role of forest inventory, it completed two full cycles (every five years) on schedule. As a result, we have the best information we have ever had about the forest of Maine.

Having timely, accurate information is just part of the equation. The ability to analyze that data, provide factual information that sound forest policy decisions can be based upon, and to spot potential trouble areas- before they become big are just as important. We consider the biometrician position, which serves that function, to be one of the most important ones in the Maine Forest Service. The ability to make full use of the data is fundamental to our understanding of the forest today and for decades to come. The US Forest Service may do some analysis, but they will never be able to do it in the breadth or depth needed to make sound decisions- whether those decisions relate to forest policy or new and existing forestry related businesses considering investments in this State.

The Maine Forest Service took on the inventory program so we would never again be in the position of not knowing what was going on in the forest. You can’t make good decisions with bad information. At a time when the forest are being looked at in new ways such as a vehicle to sequester carbon or as a source of energy to help break our dependence on oil, we believe losing the ability to ensure collection and analysis of timely, accurate information is absolutely the wrong approach. We urge you not to make this cut.

Thank you for the opportunity to raise our concerns.

SEARCH

swoam.org World Wide Web
Results provided by Google