Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Timber companies eye Wild Sky trees in Cascades

Expand Messages
  • Teresa Binstock
    Timber companies eye Wild Sky trees Saturday, November 30, 2002 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/97892_wildsky30.shtml INDEX -- The
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 1, 2002
      Timber companies eye Wild Sky trees
      Saturday, November 30, 2002

      INDEX -- The failure of Congress to act on a bill to create a new wilderness
      area in the Cascades renews the battle between those who wish to set aside the
      land and timber interests that want to make some of the proposed site available
      for logging.

      The 106,000-acre Wild Sky Wilderness in the mountains north of U.S. Route 2 did
      not materialize because the House didn't bring the measure to a vote in the
      final hours of the 107th Congress.

      Lawmakers pledged to try again in 2003.

      The American Forest Research Council, a lobbying group, will push for changes in
      new bills, which are expected to be introduced early next year. The Oregon-based
      group said in its newsletter this week that it would work with sponsors and the
      administration to make boundary changes, including reserving some of the timber
      for possible logging.

      Earlier this week, the Bush administration proposed easing regulations for
      logging in the nation's national forests.

      The U.S. Forest Service said 10,000 to 13,000 acres that would be protected in
      the Wild Sky proposal were eyed in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan as areas that
      might be logged.

      "Right now, that 10,000 or 13,000 acres are already available under the Clinton
      administration (plan) for timber harvesting," said Chris West, vice president of
      the council. Environmentalists, he said, "want to preclude it."

      None of the area in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness is scheduled for logging,
      said Ron DeHart, spokesman for the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

      Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rick Larsen, both D-Wash., led efforts on the Wild
      Sky plan.

      The bill passed the Democratic-controlled Senate in the final week, but
      languished in the House. Senate leadership will change next year, giving Murray
      less clout.

      The timber industry faces difficulties in reopening negotiations on the Wild Sky

      "The Wild Sky bill was the result of more than two years of discussion and
      negotiations with the community, snowmobilers, environmentalists and others,"
      said Todd Webster, a spokesman for Murray. "The bill is already a product of a
      great deal of negotiation and compromise.

      "Senator Murray will reintroduce the bill in January, and we will go from

      Larsen also said he will introduce a new Wild Sky bill in the House early next

      The proposal originally was to permanently protect 120,000 acres, but some land
      was excluded to make room for snowmobiling, which would not be allowed in a
      wilderness area. The bill also had some exceptions, such as a paved wheelchair
      path and permission for floatplanes to continue landing on Lake Isabel.

      The area includes 14,000 acres of rare, low-elevation old-growth timber,
      including salmon-spawning areas in the Skykomish River watershed. Some 30 miles
      of old, failing logging roads were to be closed.

      © 1998-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    • Dennis W. Schvejda
      Keep Bush Out Of The Forests John Balzar Los Angeles Times - 12/1/2002 What is it that the vast majority of Americans want but aren t getting? What is it that
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 1, 2002
        Keep Bush Out Of The Forests

        John Balzar
        Los Angeles Times - 12/1/2002

        What is it that the vast majority of Americans want but aren't getting? What
        is it that Democrats stand for but are willing to fight for only fitfully?
        What is it that Republicans claim they favor but really don't? Call it
        common sense. Or, more grandly, our future.

        Either way, it's time to say "enough" to the Bush administration's baloney
        about restoring balance to the management of our public lands and our
        environment. Restoration? Let's quickly restore some fairness and foresight
        before it's too you-know-what.

        Last week's decision by George W. Bush to open our national forests to more
        quick-profit exploitation by lumbermen, oilmen and barons of industrialized
        recreation is a shocking step backward to the profligate ways of the 19th
        century. No, it's worse than that. In the 19th century Americans at least
        had Teddy Roosevelt to raise their awareness of nature's fragile treasures.
        To do worse by Roosevelt now in the 21st century is an affront. The eye of
        history will record it as a scandal. It's a body blow to our shared wild
        lands, our wildlife and what remains of our heritage of nature. Enough.

        No matter how you want to read the elections just concluded, there was no
        mandate, or even the hint of one, for this kind of return-to-pillage across
        192 million acres that Americans hold in communal trust. A postelection
        CBS/New York Times poll found that voters, by a margin of 2 to 1, still
        believe that even in wartime, environmental protection is more important
        than oil development, let alone stepped-up clear-cutting of forests.

        Yet a day after that poll was published, in an announcement timed to land
        when families were preoccupied with the Thanksgiving holiday, this
        president, who promised to be president for us all, opened our 155 national
        forests and 20 national grasslands to industry management. Instead of having
        a national policy for protecting wildlife and scenic values, instead of
        giving the health of the environment a legal edge over exploitation for
        profit, the decisions for use of our forest and grasslands will be handed
        over to foresters at each site.

        No, not to independent-minded forestry professionals. These forest managers
        are political appointees who answer up a military-style chain of command to
        the administration's chief environmental hatchet man, Mark Rey, a career
        lobbyist and mouthpiece for the timber industry who now sits as
        undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture.

        This is how the new forest management will work: From the mouth of logging
        companies to Rey's ear down to his underlings, who will march in step or get
        stepped on, hut, hut. The administration calls it public involvement.

        In some quarters, this decision is being cast as the Bush administration
        merely undoing the extremist work of the Clinton administration. But that's
        far from the real story. In truth, Bill Clinton was anything but an
        extremist on forestry. As on many issues, he was a eager compromiser. The
        timber industry got what it could from him, and now has made its grab for
        all the rest.
        A logging industry spokesman was quoted as saying that the new system would
        merely restore "common sense ... and I don't think it will necessarily mean
        more tree removal." But if you have covered the timber wars as I have, you'd
        know different: If the loggers were handed a policy that didn't allow them
        to "remove" more trees and fast, they'd be screaming mad.

        In this case, they're cheering. You figure it.

        The administration says its new rules, which take effect in 90 days, will
        cut the time it takes to devise management plans for individual forests from
        six years to two. But wait, folks. What's the hurry? Aren't forests supposed
        to be forever? These management plans will guide decisions for the next
        decade and a half. The administration says the public needn't worry, even
        though the new rules no longer require protection of troubled fish and
        wildlife. Imagine. As for assessing the environmental consequences of forest
        uses, Rey's troopers will now have the path clear to do it in shorthand.

        Common sense? Don't believe it. I've spent hours flying over our public
        forests in survey planes. Yes, sometimes clear-cuts mimic the fires of
        nature, and landscapes re-bloom quickly. But there are huge swaths of our
        public lands ruined for short-term gain: great hillsides now barren because
        seedlings won't grow in the hot sun of our changing climate, vast mountain
        slopes stripped by landslides when trees are cut and nothing is left to hold
        back erosion, webs of streams and rivers choked with debris and rendered
        lifeless by mud, wildlife habitat chopped into incoherent pieces.

        That's what forestry regulations are supposed to regulate: the good from the
        bad. This remaining slice of our shared lands should serve more than logging
        companies trying to drive up their quarterly stock prices.

        Balance? Try this experiment in resource management. Take a sheet of paper
        and call it your forest. Tear it in two, saving half and using the other
        half. A balanced approach, you see. Then, take the preserved half and apply
        the same rules by tearing it in two again. Carry on for a while and you'll
        see that what you end up with is a pretty tiny scrap of paper. There comes a
        time to say "enough."

        Dennis W. Schvejda, Conservation Director
        NJ Chapter Sierra Club

        --->Check Out Today's Enviro News - Over 20,000 Articles Posted
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.