By an unemployed forest worker - Hard Times, Volume 2, #3, October 1982
certain parts of Six Rivers National Forest to control unwanted vegetation. Meanwhile, dozens of chainsaw brush cutters sat idle trying to figure out how to earn enough money to take care of themselves and their families. It’s one thing when a private landowner decides to overlook the need for jobs in the local economy when he decides to hire a helicopter to control brush, but it’s quite another when the federal government decides to do the same.
Consider a few comparisons between using helicopters to spray herbicides versus using manpower to cut the brush in the effort to increase conifer growth and thereby increase future timber production.
It takes just one person in a helicopter to cover 3,000 acres of forestland during a spray operation. One company receives $100,000 for the work and not one cent is spent locally.
By contrast, between 200 and 300 chainsaw workers could have been employed to cover the same acreage in one year if the work had been done manually. And instead of just one company hogging all the spoils, dozens of small companies could have shared around $400,000 which would have been dispersed throughout the north coast. This money would wind up in the pockets of local businesses who provide supplies, materials, equipment, services, etc.
Then there is the choice between quality and quantity. In a nation which was once famous for its commitment to quality, many experts are wondering whether or not the cheaper technique of spraying herbicides is accomplishing the task it is supposed to. More and more people are wondering what the economic benefits might be if the brush cutting technique shows it can provide better results.
The question is: Can manual labor, which provides more jobs, grow bigger and better trees?