Timber deal was a win for the planet

Oregon Wild defends Thorn settlement and looks forward to how to improve Senator Wyden's old growth proposal.

Tim Hermach (guest viewpoint, June 19) should be applauded for his passion when it comes to defending our publicly owned forests. With somewhere close to 90 percent of the Northwest’s old growth already gone, our magnificent forests need vocal advocates.

However, Hermach’s claim that the recent settlement over timber sales in Northeast Oregon is a “betrayal of the planet” is at best totally misinformed, and at worst completely contradicts the very ideals he espouses.

A close look at the final deal in Northeastern Oregon reveals that Oregon Wild and other conservation groups fought hard to appeal two large timber sales on the Malheur National Forest. Our efforts ultimately kept tens of thousands of acres of old-growth forests off the chopping block while also protecting critical wildlife habitat and wilderness quality lands.

It is in this spirit — a spirit of fighting for the environmental values that all Oregonians cherish — that Oregon Wild is willing to engage in public processes to save the land we all love, even if those processes are sometime flawed.

It is also in this spirit that Oregon Wild credits Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Peter DeFazio for their interest in protecting our remaining old-growth forests. Just as we did in Northeast Oregon, we will work hard to ensure that the end product results in the strongest protections possible for these mature and old-growth forests.

Oregon’s old-growth forests provide world-class recreation, habitat for wildlife and salmon, and clean drinking water for our communities.

Additionally, Pacific Northwest old-growth forests play a key role in combating climate change — storing more carbon per acre than any ecosystem on Earth.

In a state where we pride ourselves for being on the cutting edge of the “green” movement, it is time to atone for our legacy of forest destruction and protect the ancient forests we have left.

Both Wyden and DeFazio have drafted legislative proposals aimed at permanently protecting old-growth forests. However, as one veteran Oregon forest advocate likes to say, “What do you mean by ‘old growth,’ and what do you mean by ‘protect?’ ”

These questions will be at the heart of the dialogue in the coming months as these draft bills are refined and improved.

Here are a few issues already bubbling to the surface:

Wyden’s proposal calls for numerous large-scale projects to be fast-tracked, without carrying out important environmental review and public oversight. Typically, only very small projects with minimal impacts are allowed to bypass environmental review. In fact, the largest project the Bush administration tried to advance in this fashion was only 70 acres. Wyden is proposing several 50,000-acre chunks. To avoid making 50,000-acre mistakes, we need to make sure the best science is guiding these restoration projects.

When the Northwest Forest Plan was written in the early 1990s, great consideration was given to the role forests play in protecting important salmon habitat in rivers and streams. The resulting Aquatic Conservation Strategy is universally recognized as a great success in managing forests to protect dwindling salmon runs.

Wyden’s proposal includes a plan to protect rivers and streams, but it is absent the necessary details that have made the ACS so successful. Any plan to protect our forests must include comprehensive language that recognizes the important role forests play in recovering wild salmon.

Public forests in Oregon have been chain-sawed, bulldozed, starved of fire and degraded by decades of industrial logging and mismanagement. On the west side of the Cascades some areas now sit as dense, single-species tree plantations. On the east side, Ponderosa pine forests suffer from fire suppression and drought stress. These areas need scientificallybased conservation thinning. Conversely, some special areas have been spared from development and mismanagement.

Wyden’s proposal should clarify that westside forests over 80 years old that have escaped the harmful effects of modern logging remain pristine and that east side forests receive the restoration they need to protect fire-resistant old growth over 120 yearsold.

Two decades ago, Oregonians awoke to the consequences of decades of industrial logging on our public forests — threatened and endangered species, sediment-filled streams, landslides, and a fraction of our ancient forests still standing.

Today, with leadership from our elected officials, we are presented with an opportunity to finally protect the natural heritage that makes Oregon special.

Let’s make sure we do it right.