The federal Bureau of Land Management created the Western Oregon Plan Revisions to increase logging on more than 2 million acres of public land and provide more timber harvest revenue for Oregon counties lacking funds. The BLM says the proposal would generate $108 million annually for counties and create more than 3,442 jobs for rural communities by stepping up clear-cutting in these areas, many of which include protected old-growth forests.
However, the costs greatly outweigh the benefits to both the environment and the rural communities the plan says it will help.
According to its Web site, the WOPR “will guide the management of 2.6 million acres in western Oregon. The plans were prepared to provide timber for harvest and habitat for the conservation of Federally-listed species.”
But as Josh Schlossberg, associate editor for Forest Voice journal, argued in a speech at a WOPR rally held by the Native Forest Council, we should not be fooled into thinking that “the instant gratification” of increased logging revenue is a fair exchange for the life-giving benefits provided by our forests, such as clean water, air, fertile topsoil and a temperate, livable climate. Our forests are the life-blood of Pacific Northwest ecosystems, and they would be seriously endangered by the WOPR’s cavalier and hasty cutting proposals. The increased logging would result in widespread soil erosion and eliminate tree buffers along rivers and streams, effectively destroying large populations of fish and wildlife throughout the region.
In light of climate change concerns, the WOPR seems even more short sighted. Old-growth forests are one of our most vital assets in reversing the effects of global warming because they, more so than almost any other type of forest, significantly trap the carbon that contributes to planetary heating. They act as carbon sinks, or reservoirs where carbon is accumulated and stored. The Kyoto Protocol promotes the use of carbon sinks as a primary form of carbon offset.
It’s not just the environment that would suffer as a result of the WOPR. Many rural Oregon communities are on land that would be affected by the revisions, and the cutting would not only create dangerous erosion, but increase the risk of wildfires as well.
In addition, Oregon’s forests are a significant attraction for ecotourists and a source of outdoor recreation, both of which pump valuable tourist dollars into the local economy. Under the new plan, these economy-boosting services would essentially be eliminated in many areas. What’s more, many are concerned the increased federal logging would overload the timber market and kill off much of the private logging industry, whose cutting practices are more economically and environmentally sustainable than those of the WOPR.
The county payment’s question is one that should be addressed. But solutions that do not sacrifice the myriad benefits brought about by our forests can and should be found. Schlossberg, for example, suggests federal payments to counties that keep forests standing in order to further use them as carbon storage banks and counteract climate change.
Whatever the solution, it is clear the WOPR is not a viable one, as it will only create new and more serious problems for Oregon’s ecosystems, economy and citizens.
[email protected]