Guest Viewpoint: Increase logging of second growth

Jay Lininger, Executive Director of Cascadia Wildlands Project, writes about the Bureau of Land Management's plans to increase logging and a better way forward.

The Register-Guard editorialized on Aug. 12 that a new Bush administration plan to triple forest clear-cutting on public lands in Oregon is "an exercise in excess."

Without question, the Western Oregon Plan Revision, which resulted from a shady back-room deal between Bush and the timber industry, will increase controversy and gridlock, and it presents a dangerous step backward for rural counties that traditionally rely on federal timber payments.

The plan revision says logging should be the dominant use of more than 2 million forest acres managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. It would greatly accelerate logging of old forests treasured by Oregonians, and it demonstrates an immediate need for Congress to permanently protect old forests on public land for future generations.

Since 1937, county governments have earned half of timber sale receipts from logging of BLM forests. By 1989, county budgets swelled because logging became so reckless that fish and wildlife populations plunged toward extinction.

Unrestrained timber cutting, which continues on undertaxed private industrial lands, harmed watersheds and overshot the limits of local resources. Court interventions after 1991 reined in the federal logging program and mitigated ecological disaster.

Western Oregon still has forests that stand out globally. Old forests predating European settlement, cut down to a fraction of their former greatness and now found only on federal public lands, host remnant communities of life that once inhabited the entire landscape. They store irreplaceable reservoirs of biological diversity that must be protected. Old forests also provide clean drinking water, flood control, recreation and jobs in resource management and tourism. Their unique amenities attract skilled workers to the region and stimulate economic development.

Oregonians should not have to choose between protecting old forests and maintaining county budgets.

What would happen if the Bush plan is implemented and the last old forests are cut on BLM land? Will counties be more secure? Or will rural economies crumble when logs dry up again?

Rather than follow Bush toward an inevitable economic bust, local policymakers should reform county finances and build infrastructure capable of processing small trees to supply local mills and sustain public services.

The Siuslaw National Forest pioneered a way forward. Tired of lawsuits, foresters began thinning young tree plantations created after past logging rather than cutting native forests. Today, the Siuslaw is one of the only national forests that consistently exceeds logging volume targets and returns a profit to the U.S. Treasury, and without controversy. More recently, the Willamette and Umpqua national forests also focused on restoration forestry in young plantations.

The BLM can implement the same program. Half of the lands BLM considers suitable for timbering were clear-cut during the 20th century and transformed into overstocked plantations whose small trees can benefit from thinning. BLM plantations could offer more than 2 billion board feet of commercially valuable timber over the next two decades if actively thinned. Investment in Oregon mills that process logs smaller than 9 inches in diameter doubled from 1994 to 2003, making the proposition feasible.

Demand for large logs from old forests on public land persists, but production capacity and economic premiums for such material are declining relative to small logs. Premiums for large logs will increase if they are available only from private lands and markets.

Public lands should not be considered a piggy bank; their natural capital already is overdrawn. But the public has strong interests in the restoration of previously logged forests. Cutting some young trees can improve wildlife habitat by releasing other trees to grow bigger faster. If done smartly, thinning can reduce fire hazard. And forest restoration provides economic benefits from job creation, worker skill enhancement, and improved ecosystem services such as water quality and carbon sequestration. There is no reason why timber byproducts of restoration should be withheld from a smarter, leaner Oregon wood products economy.

The public has every right to expect active management of BLM forests that sustains county payments at diminished but stable levels and creates forestry and manufacturing jobs. Like most Oregonians, the Cascadia Wildlands Project supports professional foresters who identify restoration thinning opportunities that benefit watersheds and generate wood products without compounding past mistakes.

However, the Bush proposal to turn back the clock and ramp up clear-cut logging in old forests is wildly irresponsible. It fits a pattern of environmental abuse from a corrupt administration bent on appeasing a handful of well-connected political donors without regard to science or public opinion.

The social license for old forest logging ended a long time ago. Attempts to revive it will be met with opposition at every turn. Counties should not bank on liquidation of old forests as a financing solution.

Jay Lininger, a former wildland firefighter and biologist, is executive director of Cascadia Wildlands Project in Eugene (www.cascwild.org).