A devastating wildfire season in Washington has highlighted a number of issues deserving of high-level discussion and meaningful solutions.
While many have attempted to couch the discussion as one focused on climate change, the topic of logging on state and federal land should also be broached.
Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, hosted a forum on the issue Friday in Stevenson, at the southern border of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. There were no environmentalists in attendance, but those who did gather were vocal in their belief that the forest must move on from the jolting halt of logging that came with the great debates over the spotted owl.
Herrera Beutler is correct in noting that the population of the owls has continued to plummet even as the Northwest Forest Plan prevents hard-working men and women from plying their trade and bringing home paychecks while improving the overall health of the forests.
Untouched for about 20 years, many swaths of the Gifford Pinchot are essentially ticking time bombs, areas where downed trees represent fuel for potential wildfires that could alter the lives of residents much as the blazes in Eastern Washington have this year.
The answer, as the congresswoman noted, is not more bitter opposition to logging or preservation. In reality, the two no longer are mutually exclusive, as groups on both sides have begun a new and promising era of cooperation in recent years.
For example, the U.S. Forest Service and the Pinchot Partners showed a glimpse of that Saturday with a tour of the Silver Creek Thin Project, an effort that includes both timber sales and forest restoration projects.
It’s one of several similar projects in recent years that show the value of collaboration over staunch opposition.
We appreciate the words of the congresswoman on the issue.
“It doesn’t have to be an either or,” Herrera Beutler said. “There’s a future for us here if we’re willing to put down our fighting words. It needs to be a group approach.”
Accomplishing shared goals by finding solutions that result in positive movement for the logging industry and overall forest health is certainly a worthwhile goal. No one is suggesting the sweeping clearcuts of old, nor should anyone advocate the elimination of an entire industry over unverified concerns of impacts to an animal that has continued to diminish despite the ban on logging.
However, it’s high time our leaders seriously discuss the possibility of increasing the number of thinning projects and logging operations on state and federal land.
To do so would be to protect against an ever-increasing wildfire risk while providing an opportunity for many to return to work in our forests and mills.
