Oregon's federal forest lands deserve protection

A voice from rural Oregon calls for protection of our federal forests.

Once again, fear of losing federal timber payments has raised its ugly head, and predictably The Oregonian jumps out in full-throated support of extending this subsidy, arguing that, well, we're addicted to it ("Timber country and you," editorial, July 24). This ignores the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul characteristics of the program, and it fails to recognize the irony presented by the headline of the day, which was that Peter is about to default. The editorial trots out the tired argument that counties are entitled to this money because the federal government (that's us) owns land in those counties and we won't let timber and developers simply have their way with it.

But the underlying logic justifying this entitlement has never made sense to me. County property taxes are collected to provide services for the occupants of those properties. But essentially, no one lives on public land, and, consequently, the national lands don't significantly add to the county's administrative burden. The federal agencies maintain their roads, fight their fires and assist county law enforcement logistically and, in some counties, financially.

When timber was king, shares of timber receipts were huge and counties grew their budgets to match. This windfall also allowed them to tax private timber and agricultural land at an unrealistically low rate -- a rate we're now used to. But the forests were being cut at an unsustainable pace -- everybody knew that, and eventually receipts dropped off dramatically. We would all still like to live at the end of the road and have the snowplow and school bus come to our front door, but is it fair to expect our city cousins to underwrite a lifestyle in perpetuity?

I have lived in the rural West most of my life. I do not want to see the rug jerked out from under communities without time to adjust. But this red flag has been flying for a decade. Any county commission that has not planned for this eventuality should be voted out. One more one-year extension? Of course, but let that be the last.

In a Feb. 13, 2007, guest opinion on this topic, Steven J. Zika, representing timber, wrote, "If things don't change, Portland residents' tax dollars will continue to support rural Oregon." True, that. But the timber industry notion of change is to up the cut, starting another boom-and-bust cycle. There is growing political pressure to up the cut on state lands, and private timberlands will continually be harvested at maximum rate.

So, really, the only place left where elk, watershed protection, salmon, berry picking, spotted frogs and recreation will get any consideration is on the national lands. They should not be managed primarily for logs any longer -- everything surrounding them already is. Other values should receive priority here.

National lands are a treasure, not a burden. They attract visitors who spend money, then leave. They also support a myriad of good non-timber jobs. Counties that contain them are fortunate -- ask the rest of the country.

Ted Chu is a wildlife biologist. He lives in Nehalem.