Protect state's old-growth forests, focus on restoration

Old Growth Campaign Coordinator Chandra LeGue takes a look at Senator Wyden's forest bill, finding strengths and room for improvement.

Logging advocate Mickey Bellman's May 24 guest opinion, "Wyden's forest-protection bill has no regard for biology," about Sen. Wyden's draft forest legislation is just that — an opinion based on an industrial forester's perspective.

Wyden's plan does fall short for what is needed to resolve the Northwest's timber wars, but Bellman's ideas would pour gasoline on the flames.

One of his chief complaints is that Wyden's proposal chooses arbitrary numbers for defining what forests to protect. While age and size cut-offs may not be a perfect way to define old-growth, scientists tell us that forests more than 80 years old can generally take care of themselves and do not benefit ecologically from logging.

The bottom line is we've lost most of our old-growth forests, and if we want our children and grandchildren to inherit clean water, healthy salmon runs, a stable climate and a thriving tourism and recreation economy, we need to protect what little mature and old-growth forest we have left and work to restore forests damaged by past clear-cutting.

Mr. Bellman has some interesting notions about forest biology, but is correct that "forests do not grow based on man's desires or prejudices." In fact, they have grown and thrived across Oregon's landscapes for thousands of years, mostly without human influence.

It is natural for forests to regenerate after a fire or other disturbance, and to take a few hundred years to develop back into old-growth with a diversity of tree sizes and species. Wildlife such as deer and elk have also thrived in Oregon's forested landscapes for thousands of years before human management — they don't need the help of chain saws and bulldozers.

A huge portion of Oregon's forested lands are privately owned and managed for industrial timber production. You'll notice no shortage of clear-cuts on these lands, particularly in the Oregon Coast Range. What we do have is a severe shortage of old forests and undeveloped roadless areas. By some estimates we're down to about 10 percent of our historic old-growth.

Fortunately, with so few ancient forests left, management of our national forests has rightfully shifted focus in many places to help maintain and restore essential values these lands provide, such as clean water, wildlife habitat and storage of carbon dioxide — the primary global-warming pollution.

In the Siuslaw National Forest, for example, managers long ago moved away from clear-cutting and industrial forestry. They now focus on restoration-based thinning projects that correct the damage done by past mismanagement while preserving intact areas. These projects protect important natural resource values while still providing wood and jobs for local timber mills.

Sen. Wyden's bill aspires to bring this common-sense vision to all of Oregon's public lands, but unfortunately falls short. Still, federal legislation is clearly needed to move forest conservation forward.

It is high time that Congress directed federal agencies to follow the Siuslaw model and protect our last old-growth forests and roadless areas while focusing on restoration. It is a common-sense path through the woods, one that protects Oregon's natural heritage while still providing for a sustainable timber industry.

Chandra LeGue is the old-growth campaign coordinator for Oregon Wild (formerly Oregon Natural Resources Council) based in Eugene. She can be reached at cl@oregonwild.org.