SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Today Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a reversal of a major Bush-era logging plan (the much-discussed Western Oregon Plan Revisions or WOPR). It intended to triple the amount of logging on 2.6 million of acres of federal land in western Oregon, specifically in Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, Coos Bay Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area.
Salazar said the Bush plan violated federal law:
We have carefully reviewed the lawsuits filed against the WOPR and it is clear that as a result of the previous Administration’s late actions, the plan cannot stand up in court and, if defended, could lead to years of fruitless litigation and inaction.
The Obama administration's decision aims to protect endangered species like the spotted owl. This, of course, has environmentalists rejoicing. But in Salazar's announcement he also paid particular attention to the economic impact this decision may have on rural communities in western Oregon. He said:
Now, at a time when western Oregon communities are already struggling, we face the fallout of the previous Administration’s skirting of the law and efforts to taint scientific outcomes. It is important that we act swiftly to restore certainty to timber harvests on BLM lands and to protect vital timber infrastructure in these tough economic times.
This is one of many Obama roll-backs of Bush-era natural resource plans.
Are you a logger who was hoping for more work? Are you an environmentalist who is happy about this decision? Are you in a county that was hoping for more federal timber sales? What's your reaction to the end of the WOPR? What do you want to see happen next?
GUESTS:
- Jodie Weil: director of communications for the Bureau of Land Management for Oregon and Washington
- Tom Partin: president of the American Forest Resource Council
- Sean Stevens: conservation director for Oregon Wild
- Rocky McVay: executive director for the Association of Oregon and California Counties and former Curry County commissioner
Tagged as: logging
Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-
One of the best things Oregon can do to help curb global warming is to protect the forests that are absorbing half the pollution our state generates. We need to shift the focus of jobs in the woods from clear cutting old-growth to restoring all of the bazillion stands that were clear cut and are now over crowded unhealthy plantations. This is a huge step in the right direction as it takes the terrible logging plan off the table, but lets remember these old-growth forests still lack permanent protection.
Thank you to Obama for getting rid of this old-growth clear cutting plan.
Erik Fernandez
Oregon Wild -
I consider myself a farmer, and not a conservationist. However these last 50 years I have watched with dismay the abuse of our Natural Resources and I suggest loggers become farmers. They will learn better manners with regards to land management, feed themselves and others, and especially if organic farmers; will do little to no harm to our watersheds, air and foods we all need in order to live well. It is time for them to stop harming us and our lands and start learning a new trade. A "Job Well Done" to all who hung from trees, wrote letters, and worked their hearts and souls out for little to no money for all their efforts to save our forests. Thank you.
-
Sustainable harvest of timber is the only realistic way to ensure conservation of our natural resources and economic support for rural communities. We have the knowledge, the skills, the science, and the incentive to harvest timber at a sustainable rate, yet so many want to preserve our forests, instead of conserving them. Preservation efforts and current forest policies have lead to many unhealthy stands of timber. These forests do not produce good lumber, and are not necessarily beneficial to wildlife. My hope is that the current administration will replace the WOPR with a policy that embraces sustainable harvest, and realizes that biodiversity can be increased through good management.
-
It seems like as soon as we get news like this we get the same tired discussion - environmentalists are destroying the rural way of life and putting the lives of owls over loggers.
That's just not the case, and not a helpful conversation. Our forests have been mismanaged by timber bosses concerned not for the environment or sustainability, but next quarters profits. They’ve not only clearcut the forests, but their own credibility.
Conservationists on the other hand have as their mission protecting the public interest – clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities.
There’s lots of work to be done in the forest. Cutting what’s left of our old-growth is rightfully controversial. If the timber industry, and all of our public land managers would follow the model of the Siuslaw, we’d see lots of economically and ecologically sustainable progress.
-
Here's the Biz Journal story, and the comment I just mentioned.
-
When it comes to our public lands, subsidized logging and road-building is a net-money loser. Recreation in our National Forests generates 5 times more revenue than logging (I imagine the numbers are similar for BLM lands).
We’ve got lots of them, but no one visits our state or buys hiking boots to hike the clearcuts.
In any case, the biggest problem the industry has right now is a lack of demand. Increasing supply would be the worst thing you could do!
This isn’t about killing jobs. This is about stopping an illegal and destructive plan before it took effect.
The logging industry loves to use words like “green” and “sustainable”. They use environmental rhetoric to justify cutting as many of the biggest trees they possibly can. I have no doubt there are plenty of loggers who care about the environment. It’s their bosses that I don’t trust (and sadly, many of the forest managers who listen to them).
You can’t stop global warming, protect forests, wildlife, and water and increase timber harvests by the amount WOPR proposed – that’s why it was illegal.
We need to focus on logging that is sustainable – not just in rhetoric, but actually sustainable and ecologically sound. For that, I don’t trust anyone with the ear of the timber bosses.
And PS -- "regeneration harvest" is Orwellian for clearcut
-
Where did you get your statistics?
-
The saddest thing about getting rid of the illegal WOPR logging plan is that everyone is stuck on discussing the outdated jobs versus the environment paradigm. The Bush administration, and his allies in congress and the timber industry, just wasted millions of taxpayer dollars pushing through an outdated, illegal plan. The Oregon timber industry and state and county policiticians should have intervened long ago and proposed real solutions for their consituents. I am frustrated with the poor leadership coming from these counties and the state and instead of talking about jobs vs the environment we should be talking about holding these politicians accountable for such a large mistake.
-
Mr. Partin, why did your group sue to stop a thinning project designed to protect the community of Sisters earlier this year?
-
I'll try to get this in, wes, but do you want to post more info about the suit?
-
So, the argument for logging is that nature needs us to thin the forests in order for the forests and wildlife to survive?
Guess I need to learn more about logging...
-
SAFR project near sisters. They claimed they couldn't cut enough big trees.
-
thanks! We're rolling fast but I'll try to get the question in.
-
Here's an article about it from the Sisters Nugget...maybe you can ask him about it next time.
http://tinyurl.com/SAFRappeal
"Timber industry advocate the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) has appealed the Sisters Area Fuels Reduction (SAFR) project...The project was designed to reduce wildfire danger and improve forest health."
"AFRC also believes that the project doesn't cut enough trees. Burley said cutting trees over 21 inches in diameter is warranted, but the Sisters Ranger District chose to stop at 21 inches. AFRC would like to see more aggressive thinning."
-
Tom hasn't answered a question yet... glad you're not letting him off the hook.
-
Mr Partin isn't telling the whole truth. He said we only have 6 years worth of plantations to thin... the Mount Hood National Forest alone has 2,600 plantations - that will take decades to thin. Every other Oregon forest is the same - lots of plantations that need thinning, a more accurate estimate is that there are several decades of thinning plantations/restoration logging to be had.
-
We need to continue to grow lumber for commercial use, and leave the forests alone, especially the old growth forest. Anyone who has had the experience of walking through an old growth forest will be amazed. It is a wondrous experience. There are very few of them left in the world today, and Oregon has a few. In Europe they are now national parks. Leave the forest alone. Nature knows how to manage the forest, and belive it or not even fires need to happen for the correct ecological balance. However the commercial growing of trees works well. I know it is a long produced product and we just need to be willing to pay more for it than engineered products. I love wood furniture, and have some, but will not buy new wood furniture anymore unless I know it comes from farmed materials. The transition from just using up everything, to caring for the earth is a very difficult one, from giving up our cars, to changing how we build our houses. But if we continue to resist it will only put off the enevitable. The difference will be that one day we will not have any natural forest, or we will have forest and livable buildings.
-
It is unfortunate that in the search of common ground on the proper stewardship of our forests that we polarize conservation and productive management of forests to extremes like clearcutting and and a complete hands-off approach. The science of forest conservation and management has fallen out of step with modern environmental movements because the science supports not only thinnings but preventitive cuttings for fire, habitat, and other reasons much to the dismay of purist environmentalists. The WHOPPER is not grounded on very good science obviously but this discussion is a microcosim of Big Timber and supposed hands-off Environmentalists with science unrepresented.
-
The vast majority of those 30,000 comments were against the WOPR.
-
Worth including in this thread the findings from the recent OSU study:
> Contrary to accepted views on biomass stabilization and decline, biomass is still increasing in stands more than 300 years old in the Coast Range, Sierra Nevada and the West Cascade Range, and in stands more than 600 years old in the Klamath Mountains;
> The entire study region of Oregon and Northern California, as far south as San Francisco, holds a total live biomass of about two billion tons of carbon – about 14 percent of the biomass in the whole nation;
> If forests in this region were managed over hundreds of years to maximize carbon sequestration, the carbon in live and dead biomass could theoretically double in the Coast Range, west and east Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada; and triple in the Klamath Mountains.
-
We know how to log and manage forest lands several times better than we can afford to do it.
If we had a global forest practices act, and adequate referees, then the cost of a 2X4 would reflected the true cost of producing it sustainabley and responsibley. We don't have either of those things, and are not likely to get them anytime soon.
Sadly, the choice we are left with is for society to subidize forest management, or turn loose those who have a conflict of interest (no matter what they tell you) with certain aspects of a healthy forest. We have been down that road. Finally enough people, including many loggers, said stop.
-
5) People who have been dependent on the cutting down of trees and forests should be able to continue on with this dependency.
-- The cutting down of trees and forests is not sustainable. If people are living in places where the only means of earning income is via this, then they need to vacate those places and find employment or start businesses in industries that are sustainable. Also, they may need to consider family planning in order to live within their and the planet's means. No government should be in the business of propping up unsustainable activity.
6) Forests need to be thinned because forest fires need to be prevented.
-- Forest fires are healthy and necessary for the forests' health. Our forests have gotten too dense because of decades of fire suppression.
7) Forests need to be "managed."
-- The world's forests have done just fine on their own for millions of years. There is nothing that has changed in forest ecology in the last 150 years that requires humans to "manage" them. It is possible for a small overall population to alter some small areas of forest land for aesthetic and foraging desires, but that is wholly different from "managing" an entire bioregion's forests.
Our economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.
-
3) Houses need to be made out of wood.
-- In most other countries, particularly Europe, houses are not made out of wood, but of Earth materials, which are more stable and last longer. To Europeans, it is totally shocking that we make our houses out of wood. Wood should only be used in small quantities where it will be enjoyed as decoration.
4) New houses need to be built because the continual increase of new houses built on open land or in urban infill is a healthy and necessary factor of the economy.
-- The Earth already has too many houses on it. Building more of them anywhere is bad for it and us all, whether via continual sprawl or continual urban infill without a corresponding equal opening of greenspace acre per-person. It damages both livability and the ability of the Earth to replenish itself.
-
(Although my comment is well under 2500 characters, including spaces, this site won't accept it except for broken into three parts. This is the first.)
Some gross false assumptions are being made in this whole discussion:
1) It is necessary and inevitable that the demand for timber will increase.
2) It is necessary to fill that increased demand.
-- The demand for timber and wood products, along with the demand for all products, needs to decrease, as does our fulfillment of that demand. This is the only way we are going to stop global warming and prevent total ecosystemic collapse, and it is the only way for us to at last arrive at a healthy economy for all. The environment is the sole source of all economy. The more and better environment we have, the better will be our economy.
-
Comments are now closed.
By accelerating old growth clearcutting and reducing protection for streams, the WOPR would have destroyed much of what we love about Oregon's forests. If properly protected our federal forests can help stabilize our climate, provide clean drinking water, recover endangered species, and offer diverse recreation opportunities.
Thankfully, the Obama administration seeks to embrace sound science and move beyond the divisive proposals of the prior administration.
Now is the time to build on the success of the Northwest Forest Plan and focus on broadly supported solutions for our forests. It's time to take mature & old-growth forests and roadless areas off the table and focus our efforts on watershed restoration and thinning dense young stands. This will create jobs, restore the forest, and produce a modest supply of wood products.