The following letter was published as a guest editorial in the La Grande Observer newspaper:
Finding
Common Ground On Eastern Oregon Forests
Oregon’s public forests provide an tremendous variety of
benefits to our state; they protect our
air and water, provide core habitat for fish and wildlife, offer recreation
opportunities, and support the economic health of surrounding communities.
Oregon’s forests also provide a special, uniquely Oregon quality of life that
we all hope remains intact for generations to come.
Unfortunately, how to best manage these public lands is often a source of conflict. This is especially true when the Forest Service pursues poorly designed timber sales, like the Snow Basin logging project on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in northeast Oregon.
After a century of short-sighted management decisions, our east side forests are at a crossroads. Fire suppression and logging practices of the past have created forests significantly removed from what nature intended. Most of our old growth trees — those most resilient to fire — have already been logged, and a tangle of roads fragment our wildlife habitat.
The good news is conservation groups like Oregon Wild and Hells Canyon Preservation Council are successfully working with other forest stakeholders, including elected officials, landowners and the timber industry, to design logging projects which support rural economies while reducing the risk of fire, and protecting the remaining old trees and un-roaded wildlands on our forests. This common sense approach of working together to restore forests and watersheds has gained support in recent years, and is leading to enhanced trust and agreement, less controversial projects, and more forest and watershed restoration work getting done.
Unfortunately, the Snow Basin project is an example of a logging sale which fails to build on this common ground. Instead of focusing on thinning dry forest stands and reducing the risk of fire to homes and communities, the Forest Service has chosen to rush forward with a plan that includes logging in fragile, high elevation moist forests where fire risks are low and science demonstrates intensive logging is not appropriate. Many leaders and land managers are calling for “increased harvest” off of Eastern Oregon’s public lands. If they are serious, they should embrace a science-based approach that focuses on areas of consensus, and recognizes that today our forests are just as valuable for clean drinking water and our tourism and recreation economy as they are for two-by-fours. That is the only way to forge a sustainable, consensus-based path through the woods.
Now is the time to be far-sighted in our actions. Advancing projects which strengthen local economies and forest health depends on all stakeholders working together and using science as our guide. We must site logging projects in areas where they do not compromise the forest’s ability to respond to a changing climate, survive high-intensity fires, and support fish and wildlife. There may be room to increase the pace and scale of restoration-based thinning in east side forests, but we must avoid the mistakes made with Snow Basin. Any increase in logging must go hand and hand with increased protection for important environmental values.
Many leaders and land managers are calling for “increased harvest” off of Eastern Oregon’s public lands. If they are serious, they should embrace a science-based approach that focuses on areas of consensus, and recognizes that today our forests are just as valuable for clean drinking water and our tourism and recreation economy as they are for two-by-fours. That is the only way to forge a sustainable, consensus-based path through the woods.
Veronica Warnock, Conservation Director
Unfortunately, how to best manage these public lands is often a source of conflict. This is especially true when the Forest Service pursues poorly designed timber sales, like the Snow Basin logging project on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in northeast Oregon.
After a century of short-sighted management decisions, our east side forests are at a crossroads. Fire suppression and logging practices of the past have created forests significantly removed from what nature intended. Most of our old growth trees — those most resilient to fire — have already been logged, and a tangle of roads fragment our wildlife habitat.
The good news is conservation groups like Oregon Wild and Hells Canyon Preservation Council are successfully working with other forest stakeholders, including elected officials, landowners and the timber industry, to design logging projects which support rural economies while reducing the risk of fire, and protecting the remaining old trees and un-roaded wildlands on our forests. This common sense approach of working together to restore forests and watersheds has gained support in recent years, and is leading to enhanced trust and agreement, less controversial projects, and more forest and watershed restoration work getting done.
Unfortunately, the Snow Basin project is an example of a logging sale which fails to build on this common ground. Instead of focusing on thinning dry forest stands and reducing the risk of fire to homes and communities, the Forest Service has chosen to rush forward with a plan that includes logging in fragile, high elevation moist forests where fire risks are low and science demonstrates intensive logging is not appropriate. Many leaders and land managers are calling for “increased harvest” off of Eastern Oregon’s public lands. If they are serious, they should embrace a science-based approach that focuses on areas of consensus, and recognizes that today our forests are just as valuable for clean drinking water and our tourism and recreation economy as they are for two-by-fours. That is the only way to forge a sustainable, consensus-based path through the woods.
Now is the time to be far-sighted in our actions. Advancing projects which strengthen local economies and forest health depends on all stakeholders working together and using science as our guide. We must site logging projects in areas where they do not compromise the forest’s ability to respond to a changing climate, survive high-intensity fires, and support fish and wildlife. There may be room to increase the pace and scale of restoration-based thinning in east side forests, but we must avoid the mistakes made with Snow Basin. Any increase in logging must go hand and hand with increased protection for important environmental values.
Many leaders and land managers are calling for “increased harvest” off of Eastern Oregon’s public lands. If they are serious, they should embrace a science-based approach that focuses on areas of consensus, and recognizes that today our forests are just as valuable for clean drinking water and our tourism and recreation economy as they are for two-by-fours. That is the only way to forge a sustainable, consensus-based path through the woods.
Veronica Warnock, Conservation Director
Hells Canyon Preservation Council
Steve Pedery, Conservation Director
Oregon Wild
