From Bob Zybach:
Here is an interesting opinion piece published by Oregon Congressman
Peter DeFazio in Wednesday's Oregonian. I posted a response in
www.oregonlive.com, which I will post next -- in the interests of
hopefully get a discussion going.
The Oregonian
Published: Wednesday, February 23, 2011
By Peter DeFazioPublic forests are important to Oregonians for different reasons. Ask a logger or mill worker about the value of forests and they'll probably talk about the relationship of forests to their livelihood and their desire to work outside with their hands.
Ask a conservationist and you'll hear about the role forests play in purifying the water we drink, filtering the air we breathe and sustaining the incredible wildlife we marvel at.
Ask a fisherman, hiker or hunter and you'll get different but equally compelling answers.
Regardless of your perspective, Oregonians have at least one thing in common: We care deeply about our forests and depend on them for the many values they provide. It should be from this common interest that we attempt to solve the crisis our public forests face: Hundreds of thousands of acres of western Oregon forests are unnaturally dense, dying from disease and drought, and/or prone to catastrophic fire. The economic, environmental and social benefits we derive from our forests are being severely degraded as a consequence.
Over the last two decades we've made little progress in addressing our forest health crisis. False starts and unmet promises from Democratic and Republican administrations, a maze of regulations and unscientific restrictions, time-consuming lawsuits, and distrust between key stakeholders have prevented responsible forest management.
Last summer, I began a process in Oregon to break the gridlock. I convened a series of public meetings with key stakeholders, lead field trips into the woods with forestry experts and members of local communities, and brought Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to Roseburg to hear from Oregonians directly. Everyone agreed that the status quo was unacceptable.
To overcome decades of failure, we have to take risks and try new things. I've advocated for test projects to examine new, scientifically based strategies to manage our forests. The test projects should evaluate new ways to accomplish key priorities, such as watershed restoration, forest resiliency and a sustainable supply of timber. The idea isn't to lock in a new forest policy, but simply to allow independent scientists to try new ideas. By giving all stakeholders an opportunity to evaluate the results, everyone would become part of the solution.
Work on designing the projects and establishing a schedule for implementation has already begun. Public hearings, field tours and workshops will be held in southwest Oregon throughout the year to seek community buy-in and local support. The test projects are expected to generate several marketable forest restoration projects by next summer, putting Oregonians back to work in communities with unemployment still higher than 15 percent.
Undoubtedly, some will find fault with the projects. Others will make excuses as to why progress should be stopped. But the status quo of forest management is failing and our forests, and rural communities are paying the price. The test projects offer an opportunity to move forward in a new direction, break the gridlock and to put us on a path to achieve our common interest of restoring forest health.
Peter DeFazio represents Oregon's 4th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
(Here is Bob Zybach's response to DeFazio. Other perspectives?)
ReplyDeleteAs a lifelong Oregonian with more than twenty years experience as a
reforestation contractor and with a similar amount of time as a forest
scientist specializing in northwest forest and fire history, I can
greatly appreciate what Mr. DeFazio is saying and suggesting. There is
a gridlock and it has been having a terrible effect on the health of
Oregon's forests and rural communities.
Many of the statements made in these posts by anti-logging advocates
are missing the mark -- many of the "scientific" perspectives and
"historical" statements they provide aren't even debatable; they're
just erroneous. Mostly, though, the statements are based on personal
values more than any other factor. Some people like wooden houses,
some don't; some like firewood, others don't like smoke.
I agree with Mr. DeFazio that it would be great if forest scientists
of varying perspectives were allowed to practice their hypotheses on
federal lands as one method of returning active management and
"health" to our forests and rural communities. But I also agree with
the posters who say that this is not a science problem at all, but a
political problem. The solution to current gridlock lies with voters
and Congressmen, not with scientists or resource managers.
The key cause of gridlock has been legislation and litigation that has
resulted in passive management of federal lands in the western US --
lands, including forests, that had previously been actively managed
for thousands of years. The evidence is everywhere you look, and can
be described in the terms used by Mr. DeFazio.
I would suggest that the one great thing Congress could do immediately
would be to demand a bond from all litigants seeking to halt active
management activities on federal lands.
Yes, the ESA needs to be revisited; same with Wilderness, for that
matter -- much has been learned about forest history, fire ecology,
taxonomy, and other areas of science since these laws were first
written. More important, as related to gridlock, might be the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and existing policies which allow
environmental industry groups to sue the government (often with grant
money provided by taxpayers), and then be paid with taxpayer money
when they are successful (most often for procedural problems, rather
than reasons of environmental degradation). This is a ridiculous waste
of taxpayer money and resources and is something Congress could
immediately fix to make positive change possible.
Our forests are the products of active management for thousands of
years -- including harvesting and regular prescribed fire -- and are
being heavily damaged by unprecedented current policies of passive
management and taxpayer-financed litigation.
First things first -- politics created this mess, not science. The
solution is in Washington DC, not SW Oregon.
On Feb 25, 6:33 pm, Bob Zybach wrote:
(Here is Bob Zybach's response to DeFazio. Other perspectives?)
ReplyDeleteAs a lifelong Oregonian with more than twenty years experience as a
reforestation contractor and with a similar amount of time as a forest
scientist specializing in northwest forest and fire history, I can
greatly appreciate what Mr. DeFazio is saying and suggesting. There is
a gridlock and it has been having a terrible effect on the health of
Oregon's forests and rural communities.
Many of the statements made in these posts by anti-logging advocates
are missing the mark -- many of the "scientific" perspectives and
"historical" statements they provide aren't even debatable; they're
just erroneous. Mostly, though, the statements are based on personal
values more than any other factor. Some people like wooden houses,
some don't; some like firewood, others don't like smoke.
I agree with Mr. DeFazio that it would be great if forest scientists
of varying perspectives were allowed to practice their hypotheses on
federal lands as one method of returning active management and
"health" to our forests and rural communities. But I also agree with
the posters who say that this is not a science problem at all, but a
political problem. The solution to current gridlock lies with voters
and Congressmen, not with scientists or resource managers.
The key cause of gridlock has been legislation and litigation that has
resulted in passive management of federal lands in the western US --
lands, including forests, that had previously been actively managed
for thousands of years. The evidence is everywhere you look, and can
be described in the terms used by Mr. DeFazio.
I would suggest that the one great thing Congress could do immediately
would be to demand a bond from all litigants seeking to halt active
management activities on federal lands.
Yes, the ESA needs to be revisited; same with Wilderness, for that
matter -- much has been learned about forest history, fire ecology,
taxonomy, and other areas of science since these laws were first
written. More important, as related to gridlock, might be the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and existing policies which allow
environmental industry groups to sue the government (often with grant
money provided by taxpayers), and then be paid with taxpayer money
when they are successful (most often for procedural problems, rather
than reasons of environmental degradation). This is a ridiculous waste
of taxpayer money and resources and is something Congress could
immediately fix to make positive change possible.
Our forests are the products of active management for thousands of
years -- including harvesting and regular prescribed fire -- and are
being heavily damaged by unprecedented current policies of passive
management and taxpayer-financed litigation.
First things first -- politics created this mess, not science. The
solution is in Washington DC, not SW Oregon.