Been through this logging battle before

Former Oregon Congressman Jim Weaver weighs in on the BLM's WOPR and old-growth logging.

It was the greatest timber fight in a generation — the clash over the National Forest Management Act of 1976. A federal court ruling had shut down logging on the national forests, and Congress scrambled to nullify it.

The timber industry put forth a one-paragraph bill overriding the court. At the urging of environmentalists, Sen. Hubert Humphrey, D-Minn., sponsored a lengthy bill requiring forest plans and diversity.

Humphrey, author of the Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and a former vice president, was so revered that the industry feared even to lobby against his bill in the Senate, where it passed almost unanimously. In the House, however, the sharply honed axes came out, and the struggle was fierce.

The most contentious provision of the Humphrey bill defined sustained yield as “even-flow, nondeclining yield.” The term means exactly what it says: Old growth trees could not be cut faster than other large trees grew to take their place. The harvest of mature trees would not decline.

The timber industry and its allied unions desperately wanted to cut as much old growth timber as was available as fast as they could. Their definition of sustained yield counted the “fiber added” growth of saplings, even though many years would pass before those saplings reached maturity.

Once they devoured the old growth there would be little left for the saws, even though the saplings would be adding future fiber. A long period of “declining yield” would ensue.

But their attitude was: Who cares? To hell with those magnificent trees. To hell with the future.

To ensure that the House bill did not include the hated “even flow” language, the timber industry had the chairman of the Forests Subcommittee come to Portland, where they paid him $3,000 to eat breakfast. But that maneuver was upset when the chairman was killed in a fiery plane crash.

I was the next ranking member on the subcommittee, but in violation of House rules a timber congressman from Montana, not a member of the committee, was made temporary chairman. The House lacked any environmentalist leader with even a smattering of knowledge of forestry — and so I, a mere freshman, was left alone to take up the challenge.

Alone I was. The entire Northwest delegation in the House — including Al Ullman, Les Aucoin and Bob Duncan of Oregon — were in the pockets of the industry. Even the Eastern and Midwestern members sided with the timber companies as they picked off the Republicans, and had their unions corral the Democrats.

Boy, did they hate me! I was already an establishment pariah, having killed the Elk Creek Dam and blocked the Bonneville Power Administration from signing new 20-year contracts for cheap electricity with the aluminum companies. When I offered the even flow amendment, I was swamped.

That timber fight back in 1976 is with us again in the controversy over the plan the Bureau of Land Management proposes for the forests of the former Oregon & California Railroad lands. The BLM wants to triple — that is, triple— the sustained yield cut on the O&C lands by reverting to the “growth of the saplings” dodge. Ravage the old growth trees now and to hell with the future!

What happened back in 1976? Unlike today, we had some grand old senators who were not going to let our forests be wantonly depleted. In the conference committee where the differences between Senate and House bills would be ironed out, there were five presidential candidates, all liberals who supported the Humphrey bill, one of whom was Washington Sen. Scoop Jackson, who dominated his state’s delegation. The leader of the House members on the conference was cautious Tom Foley of Spokane, who kept quiet, daring not to cross Jackson.

That left an opening for me. I would arrive early for each conference meeting, held in a small room in the Capitol. Pushing through the crowd of lobbyists, I would gain the seat on the long, narrow table directly across from Humphrey. Humphrey would read each provision of the two bills, then move for the adoption of the Senate version. I would then say, “sounds good to me, senator,” and the presidential candidates would nod in agreement. No one else dared speak up.

The meetings went on until the entire Humphrey bill was at the point of adoption. On the last day of the conference, Sen. Mark Hatfield appeared with a five-page amendment to the Senate even-flow provision. It was the moment all had been waiting for.

Forest Service Chief John McGuire was squeezed in right in back of me. I asked him what would be the result if the Hatfield amendment were adopted. He sucked in his stomach and said the even-flow, nondeclining yield formula would be done with.

Humphrey read over Hatfield’s five pages. “Mark,” he said kindly to his esteemed colleague, “isn’t this a little too much?” He swiftly crossed out 95 percent of Hatfield’s language, leaving only a minor exception intact. Then he moved adoption of the bill, and the even-flow provision became law.

Although the O&C lands are under their own statutes, they are still federal forests, and the BLM should honor the even-flow, nondeclining yield provision. The privately held forests of the Northwest have been ravaged. Only the spotted owl lawsuits (based on a provision of the NFMA of 1976) have kept some national forest old growth standing. Now, the BLM should never, never say to hell with the future and allow the wholesale logging of the last of our great forest preserve.

--------

Jim Weaver of Eugene represented Oregon’s 4th District in Congress from 1975 to 1987.