Let's not turn back the clock to conflict

Oregon Wild's conservation director Steve Pedery argues that the BLM's new plan to log hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth is a recipe for conflict and we should be careful to see who is behind the efforts to promote it.

The federal Bureau of Land Management is taking public comment on a plan to expand logging in Oregon's public forestlands. As written, the plan would amount to a stark departure from the balanced approach of the Northwest Forest Plan and a return to the widespread use of clear-cutting and old-growth logging in western Oregon.

A commentary in The Oregonian by a group calling itself Citizens for Sustainable Forests & Communities justified the BLM's proposal as a way to boost Oregon's economy, particularly in rural areas ("BLM's forest plan would help counties," Aug. 25). The group's Web site claims it's "a grassroots organization committed to re-creating a connection between our communities and the resources that once helped sustain us."

From the outside, this "citizens" group appears to be a local organization formed by two former county commissioners to do what's best for rural Oregonians. In reality, its Web site is registered to the public relations firm Pac/West Communications.

Pac/West has a long history as the spin doctors of choice for corporate and development interests. Among its more notable clients are those hoping to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to gut the Endangered Species Act. Its staff is a who's who of former logging industry lobbyists and anti-environment public officials, including former Rep. Richard Pombo of California, who spent years in Congress attempting to repeal the Endangered Species Act and other environmental safeguards.

So while proponents of expanding old-growth logging may say they're working on behalf of rural communities, the special interests that stand to benefit when the chain saws start up are the ones calling the shots.

Part of the argument that supporters of a new logging plan have put forward highlights the dire state of county budgets in timber-dependent areas. That's true. Many rural counties are facing a financial crunch, but we don't have to resort to clear-cutting old-growth forests to address their problem. In fact, logging our last remaining ancient forests is a recipe for more conflict and bitterness, while ensuring that we'll face another crisis a few years down the road when the last of the big trees are gone.

There's a better way forward. Environmental groups have recently been teaming up with progressive forest managers to develop projects that are truly sustainable. Restorative thinning of previously clear-cut areas in the Siuslaw National Forest and elsewhere has proven to be a noncontroversial, win-win solution. When overgrown plantations are thinned, the fire threat is reduced, rural counties get an influx of jobs, and fish and wildlife habitat can be improved. To go back to clear-cutting old growth while hundreds of thousands of acres of plantations need thinning is not just bad management, it's also bad economics.

Most Oregonians want sustainable forest management that protects wildlife habitat, safeguards our rivers and drinking water, and preserves valuable recreation opportunities. Oregon needs such a balanced approach to our forests, one that protects pristine roadless wildlands. What it doesn't need is cynical special interests trying to turn back the clock to the logging wars of the 1980s.

Steve Pedery is conservation director for Oregon Wild.