State officials are wrong to predict that thousands of Maine residents could lose their jobs next year if voters enact the citizens initiative to ban clear-cutting, according to forest activist Mitch Lansky of Wytopitlock.

Even if voters approve the initiative Nov. 5, timber harvesting could continue at present levels for at least 11 years, said Lansky, author of the controversial 1992 book, “Beyond the Beauty Strip, Saving What’s Left of Our Forests.”

“Is there going to be an immediate shortfall [of timber]? My conclusion is no,” said Lansky. “If there’s not a shortfall, it doesn’t look like there will be an immediate job loss.”

Last summer, in an economic analysis of the citizens initiative, the heads of the Maine Forest Service and State Planning Office reported that Maine would lose 15,600 jobs and $439 million in wages if the clear-cutting referendum is approved. The initiative will appear as Question 2A on the November ballot.

The state’s analysis was based on the assumption that logging restrictions in the initiative would reduce the amount of spruce-fir and hardwood available to Maine mills by 19 percent beginning next year.

“If there are 19 percent less trees [harvested], there’s going to be 19 percent less paper and lumber products produced,” said Michael Montagna, an economist in the State Planning Office. “Our whole economic scenario really rests on that.”

Lansky, however, said there was no reason to predict a shortfall of wood in 1997. Using data from a new U.S. Forest Service inventory of the Maine woods, he estimated there are more than 2.5 million acres of spruce-fir forests that are stocked heavily enough to be immediately harvestable, even under the constraints of the citizens initiative.

“There is around an 11-year supply of spruce-fir acreage harvestable right now, statewide, under the referendum standards,” said Lansky.

The forest activist also claimed northern hardwoods could be harvested at current rates for 14 years, and aspen-birch forests cut for 13 years, without running afoul of the citizens initiative.

“This says the debate [about the economic consequences of the citizens initiative] has been based on a very false premise: that the effects will be so drastic there will be an immediate job loss,” said Lansky. ” … To me, their whole argument is founded on this point, and it’s wrong.”

If the Maine economy won’t begin to feel the effects of the harvesting restrictions for more than a decade, the Legislature will have plenty of time to correct any problems with the citizens initiative, according to Lansky.

Montagna said the Wytopitlock author was asking the right questions about the state’s analysis. “The whole economic scenario depends on the harvest scenario provided by the Maine Forest Service, that the unorganized territories would experience a 50 percent or 60 percent reduction in harvesting,” he said. “If that’s not true, then our economic story is linked to a false estimate.”

That doesn’t mean Lansky is right, according to Montagna. It’s not clear whether those `harvestable’ acres could really be cut, he said.

“If, on paper, there are 2.5 million acres available, what is the reality that in one year, or even five years, they could be harvested?” asked Montagna. “Are those acres accessible? Who are they accessible to?”

The director of the Maine Forest Service defended his agency’s estimate of substantial harvesting reductions in the unorganized territories.

“Our modeling is more practical [than Lansky’s],” said Charles Gadzik. “It asks, `At what level can you sustain harvesting [given restrictions in the citizens initiative]?’ We didn’t ask, `How many years can you go without running out of wood?”‘

Gordon Mott, a former U.S. Forest Service researcher who recently worked as a consultant to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, accepted Lansky’s claim that millions of acres could be harvested under the referendum.

Mott said, however, that not all of the wood was “economically available.” Some of it is growing on lots that are too small to harvest, he said. Other stands are geographically remote, and large landowners could be forced to build hundreds of miles of roads to reach them, according to Mott.

Even if Lansky is wrong, Gadzik and Montagna acknowledged that the full economic impact of the clear-cutting referendum wouldn’t be felt on Jan. 1. They said it would develop over five years as the market adjusted to harvesting constraints imposed by the citizens initiative.

“Clearly, 15,000 jobs wouldn’t disappear on day one,” said Gadzik.

That fact is noted in small print in a footnote near the end of the state’s economic analysis. The main text of the report, however, makes several references to economic impacts that would be felt “beginning in 1997.” Charts produced by the state project 1997 employment, wage and output levels being immediately reduced by passage of the clear-cutting referendum.

Lansky’s analysis is bad news for Gov. Angus King, major landowners, and the mainstream environmental, business, labor and sportsmen’s groups that support Question 2B, the Compact for Maine’s Forests. An alternative to the citizens initiative, the compact proposes a modest increase in regulations plus a new audit program to ensure the forest practices of the 15 largest landowners are economically and environmentally sound.

Recent polls by newspapers and others suggest Question 2B is supported by twice as many voters as the citizens initiative. Question 2C, the third option on the November ballot, allows voters to reject both measures.

The rules for determining which alternative wins the three-way contest are as complicated as the issue itself. If either 2A or 2B receives more than 50 percent of the votes cast, it passes. If both get less than 33 percent, both fail.

If one or both of the questions gets between 33 percent and 50 percent of hte vote, the option with the higher percentage will be presented to voters at a special election in 1997.

If neither 2A nor 2B ultimately prevails, the state would continue to enforce the 1989 Forest Practices Act. Perversely, Lansky’s analysis could benefit supporters of 2C, who say the government has no reason to impose more logging restrictions.

“His [Lansky’s] numbers clearly show that drastic measures like 2A or 2B are not needed,” said Hank McPherson, owner of McPherson Timberlands in Bangor.