Washington’s commissioner of public lands has been the recipient of criticism this week.
Peter Goldmark, elected in 2008, was the subject of a Seattle Times investigative piece centered on his pledge six years ago not to take money from the timber industry.
The report, which was later distributed by The Associated Press and can be found in today’s edition on page Main 6, detailed how he has since accepted more than $100,000 from lumber-centric businesses.
The Times report used Weyerhaeuser as an example, citing how the company has donated money to the politician after it was cast as a villain while he was on the campaign trail.
Broken campaign promises are not rare. Often, a would-be officeholder says what he or she thinks will lead to election regardless of all else. Others change their opinions once they’re elected, sometimes after gaining new information or a greater knowledge of the subject matter.
One would not have to look far to find examples. Gov. Jay Inslee promised he would not seek new taxes. Yet, the state’s leader then proposed increases and voiced support for others.
While we don’t appreciate the two-tongued approach to gaining political power, we think it should be noted that Goldmark is not alone.
Furthermore, his decision to soften his approach to the state’s timber industry should be a welcome development, especially here in Lewis County.
To a certain extent, we agree with the words of Republican political consultant Alex Hays, who told The Seattle Times he was initially afraid of Goldmark’s policies when he took office in 2008. He said he has been pleased to see the commissioner instead take a pro-timber approach.
“I like what Goldmark has become,” he said.
The Seattle Times report also sought to link Goldmark’s management of public lands to the recent and tragic events in Oso, where the death toll of a catastrophic landslide has resulted in a current death toll of 39 people.
A clear-cut timber operation that occurred above the slope in 2004 has been haplessly linked to the disaster by ardent opponents of logging who are not interested in waiting until a detailed analysis of the cause can be completed.
We appreciate the measured approach taken by Goldmark on the issue.
“Slides occurred (historically) in that area without logging,” he said in an interview with TVW. “There’s no obvious connection right now. It’s pure speculation.”
A conversation must be had when it comes to the issue of logging and its potential to create or intensify such slides. That debate, however, should not be conducted in a way that ignores science in order to further shackle an industry that has taken tremendous beatings at the hands of over-zealous environmentalists.
Targeting Goldmark because he has not continued that assault is disingenuous and unproductive.
