Stick to state forest plan -- Reject bill to maximize timber harvest
Oregon voters and their legislators have repeatedly rejected proposals to give either logging or preservation favored status in state forest management plans. Oregonians recognize that their forests provide the greatest possible benefit for everyone when they are managed under a general mandate of balance, with the details left to the professionals at the state Department of Forestry in consultation with the public. The Legislature should reaffirm this long-standing position by rejecting a bill that would elevate timber production above all other uses of state forest lands.
The proposal, House Bill 3072, mainly targets the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests in northwestern Oregon, though the Elliott State Forest in Douglas and Coos counties and Common School Fund lands could also be affected. These areas include 3 percent of Oregon’s forest land — a significant resource. Much of the land was deeded by counties to the state after a series of devastating fires half a century ago.
Current law provides a broad mandate, requiring that state forests be managed to maintain “healthy, productive and sustainable forest ecosystems that over time and across the landscape provide a full range of social, economic and environmental benefits to the people of Oregon.” The state Department of Forestry has developed a management plan that will eventually restore the forests, which are of relatively even age, to a more natural mixed-age condition. Timber harvests, now and in the future, are a part of the plan, as are wildlife habitat, recreation and other uses.
HB 3072 would alter the mandate, making timber production that provides revenues to county governments the highest priority in the management of state forests. The Tillamook and Clatsop forests would become indistinguishable from the commercial timber lands around them, with even-aged forests cut and replanted on a short rotation. The forests’ ability to provide fisheries, recreation and clean water would be secondary management considerations, if those values were considered at all.
The counties in northwestern Oregon are hungry for the revenue that would come from increased timber harvests and the jobs that accelerated logging would provide. But unemployment in the region is slightly below the statewide average, and timber prices have fallen to historic lows. Even if buyers could be found, a higher volume of cut timber would depress prices still further. The counties are asking Oregon to sell timber now that would almost certainly fetch a higher price later.
Northeastern Oregon’s relatively low unemployment is the product of an economy that is built not just on timber but on tourism, fishing and retirees. A well-rounded economy depends upon well-rounded forest management. Managing the forests primarily for the benefit of one sector of the region’s economy would weaken the others.
In 2004, Oregon voters rejected an initiative measure that would have placed half of the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests off-limits to logging. A year earlier, the Legislature defeated a bill that would have doubled logging on the two forests. Oregonians and their leaders understand that these forests are neither wilderness areas nor industrial tree farms, but public lands of high and increasing value that can provide a variety of benefits to the region and the entire state.
