Oregon’s Logging: An Ongoing Catastrophe
Robert Fantina
August 18, 2007
The beauty of the Oregon mountains is indeed awe-inspiring. The variety of greens is impressive; some trees appear darker, either because of the particular species, or because they are shadowed by larger trees, which themselves appear lighter in the glistening sun. The first look is spectacular, which only makes the ugly scarring of the clear cut – a wide swath wherein all the trees have been cut - that follows all the more jarring. Like a cruel slash across a handsome or beautiful face, the cut is not barren; rather it is littered with its own scar tissue, the broken limbs and discarded trunks deemed unworthy to take, but cut nonetheless.
Most of Oregon’s old growth forests are long gone; at least 90% have fallen to the timber industry. In some areas these forests have been replaced by new trees that will be harvested when they reach maturity. However, these tree farms cannot be seen as replacement forests in any but a commercial sense. Unlike a natural forest, only one kind of tree is planted, and herbicides are used to keep competing species out, and pesticides used to prevent them from serving as a habitat for insects that are a natural part of a forest. Animals and birds, however, only see the trees as places to nest and raise their young, unaware of the poisons they will ingest by living there.
Where trees are not replaced, a different set of problems exists. With nothing to hold the soil in place erosion is common, delaying nature’s own healing and growth. The ground has been beaten hard by timber equipment, making it inhospitable for any seeds that may blow into the area. The now-dead roots beneath the rotting stumps once held the soil and nutrients. Now as they decay the ability to prevent erosion slowly decreases, allowing soil to fill any nearby riverbeds. With the water shallower, fish species that once flourished there are now unable to do so. Salmon-bearing watersheds are particularly vulnerable to this risk.
Animals are uncomfortable leaving the safety of the forest to cross the clear cut in order to find mates, and so mate within a restricted area, causing inter-breeding which decreases the animal population, since the offspring of closely-related mates have a higher mortality rate than those of their more distant peers.
There appears to be a triple standard regarding regulations for logging in Oregon. The first tier is at the Federal level, under the auspices of the U.S. Forest Service. Public land is managed by the federal Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The regulations under which the department operates are fairly strict, with organizations such as the Sierra Club acting as watchdog. If the Forest Service wishes to log a portion of its own land, approval to do so generally takes three-to-five years. This is because of the necessity to access, with some degree of rigor, potential environmental damage. Botanists, hydrologists and other environmental professionals accomplish these studies and report their findings. These studies and subsequent reports are carefully monitored by citizen groups.
The second level is the State of Oregon Department of Forestry. This organization operates with fewer restrictions than the U.S. Forest Service. Because the restrictions are far weaker than for federal lands, there is less that concerned citizens or organizations can do to combat violations. Such groups tend to feel that their efforts are more productively spent monitoring the land-management activities of the federal government.
Finally, there is private ownership, which operates ostensibly under the Oregon Forestry Practice Act. There is very little enforcement of the few regulations under which private owners can harvest their trees, and few individuals or organizations have the resources to sue the huge companies that violate those regulations. The result is the environmental disaster that is Oregon.
The Oregon Forest Practices Act, voted into law by the Legislature in 1971, was the first of its kind in the nation. This “… Act encourages economically efficient forest management in Oregon and the continuous growing and harvesting of trees and maintenance of forestland on privately owned land.” Note that the act encourages rather than mandates.
There is, however, one commonality among all three levels. Each of these organizations raises significant amounts of its revenue through logging. With logging such an important factor in the bottom line, having the forest service monitor it is akin to the wolves guarding the henhouse.
One would be naïve to say that logging should cease. A consumer population demands a wide variety of wood products. But it would be unnecessarily cynical to suggest that the current, eco-hostile policies are the only way. Controlled logging, using less invasive and damaging methods, can provide the necessary raw materials with far less peril to a fragile and shrinking environment.
In order for this to happen, however, several significant changes must occur. First and foremost, the government charged with protecting the environment must recognize the value in doing so. Secondly, corporations that earn their money through logging must be held accountable for the regulations they violate. And underpinning all this, a profound shift in corporate values, from a bottom line that sees only profit, must be made that recognizes people, planet and profits.
Such a philosophy may at first be dismissed as pie-in-the-sky, but companies that have embraced it have shown increased profit. And while it is seen as an extreme measure, current logging and eco-hostile practices are far more extreme, but only seem less so because through long years society as become immune to their horror. And until citizens demand government and corporate accountability, the horror will continue.
Most of Oregon’s old growth forests are long gone; at least 90% have fallen to the timber industry. In some areas these forests have been replaced by new trees that will be harvested when they reach maturity. However, these tree farms cannot be seen as replacement forests in any but a commercial sense. Unlike a natural forest, only one kind of tree is planted, and herbicides are used to keep competing species out, and pesticides used to prevent them from serving as a habitat for insects that are a natural part of a forest. Animals and birds, however, only see the trees as places to nest and raise their young, unaware of the poisons they will ingest by living there.
Where trees are not replaced, a different set of problems exists. With nothing to hold the soil in place erosion is common, delaying nature’s own healing and growth. The ground has been beaten hard by timber equipment, making it inhospitable for any seeds that may blow into the area. The now-dead roots beneath the rotting stumps once held the soil and nutrients. Now as they decay the ability to prevent erosion slowly decreases, allowing soil to fill any nearby riverbeds. With the water shallower, fish species that once flourished there are now unable to do so. Salmon-bearing watersheds are particularly vulnerable to this risk.
Animals are uncomfortable leaving the safety of the forest to cross the clear cut in order to find mates, and so mate within a restricted area, causing inter-breeding which decreases the animal population, since the offspring of closely-related mates have a higher mortality rate than those of their more distant peers.
There appears to be a triple standard regarding regulations for logging in Oregon. The first tier is at the Federal level, under the auspices of the U.S. Forest Service. Public land is managed by the federal Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The regulations under which the department operates are fairly strict, with organizations such as the Sierra Club acting as watchdog. If the Forest Service wishes to log a portion of its own land, approval to do so generally takes three-to-five years. This is because of the necessity to access, with some degree of rigor, potential environmental damage. Botanists, hydrologists and other environmental professionals accomplish these studies and report their findings. These studies and subsequent reports are carefully monitored by citizen groups.
The second level is the State of Oregon Department of Forestry. This organization operates with fewer restrictions than the U.S. Forest Service. Because the restrictions are far weaker than for federal lands, there is less that concerned citizens or organizations can do to combat violations. Such groups tend to feel that their efforts are more productively spent monitoring the land-management activities of the federal government.
Finally, there is private ownership, which operates ostensibly under the Oregon Forestry Practice Act. There is very little enforcement of the few regulations under which private owners can harvest their trees, and few individuals or organizations have the resources to sue the huge companies that violate those regulations. The result is the environmental disaster that is Oregon.
The Oregon Forest Practices Act, voted into law by the Legislature in 1971, was the first of its kind in the nation. This “… Act encourages economically efficient forest management in Oregon and the continuous growing and harvesting of trees and maintenance of forestland on privately owned land.” Note that the act encourages rather than mandates.
There is, however, one commonality among all three levels. Each of these organizations raises significant amounts of its revenue through logging. With logging such an important factor in the bottom line, having the forest service monitor it is akin to the wolves guarding the henhouse.
One would be naïve to say that logging should cease. A consumer population demands a wide variety of wood products. But it would be unnecessarily cynical to suggest that the current, eco-hostile policies are the only way. Controlled logging, using less invasive and damaging methods, can provide the necessary raw materials with far less peril to a fragile and shrinking environment.
In order for this to happen, however, several significant changes must occur. First and foremost, the government charged with protecting the environment must recognize the value in doing so. Secondly, corporations that earn their money through logging must be held accountable for the regulations they violate. And underpinning all this, a profound shift in corporate values, from a bottom line that sees only profit, must be made that recognizes people, planet and profits.
Such a philosophy may at first be dismissed as pie-in-the-sky, but companies that have embraced it have shown increased profit. And while it is seen as an extreme measure, current logging and eco-hostile practices are far more extreme, but only seem less so because through long years society as become immune to their horror. And until citizens demand government and corporate accountability, the horror will continue.
Print
Email
