A Long-Running War Appears At an End
June 2006
While the attention is overseas, a long-running war that affected thousands here in Washington State appears to be coming to a close.
During the past few months, environmental groups, foresters and elected officials have announced two landmark agreements that will set the standard of forestry and habitat protection in state and private forests for years to come. They will go a long way toward ending the “timber wars” that cost so many people their jobs, seriously impacted rural communities and made stewardship of Washington’s forests a partisan political football for nearly two decades.
On March 21, the State Board of Natural Resources, environmental groups and forestry groups endorsed a settlement outlining how state forestland is managed to produce revenue for schools while protecting wildlife and salmon. Two and a half months later on June 5, Governor Christine Gregoire and Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland signed an agreement outlining the high standards of forestry for private forest lands in Washington. The agreement not only protects salmon, but gives foresters guarantees that if they follow the rules, they cannot be sued for unexpected impacts.
The timing of the two agreements is coincidental, but the political and scientific atmosphere that contributed to both agreements has been forming for some time. Two key elements stand out.
For about a decade, there has been a growing consensus in Washington State that the old method of protecting habitat in state forests was outdated. Protections followed threatened and endangered species around. The problem was that species rely on a mosaic of habitat types and efforts to slap protections wherever a species was found would only lead to a disjointed patchwork of habitat.
The new science represented in these agreements focuses on creating a balanced mosaic of habitat in each watershed. The goal is to create forests where species can find the variety of habitat they need. By focusing on habitat rather than the species, the plan more accurately fits the natural pattern of an eco-system, rather than trying to lock forests up bit by bit in the hope that it all works out.
With these agreements, this science now guides stewardship of both state and private lands. Previously, some had argued against making this switch, worrying that the transition from the old system to the new science would be too damaging. These agreements, however, help mitigate short-term impacts while achieving the long-term benefits that this science offers.
This transition from the old science to the new was key to reaching these two agreements.
The second key was the transition away from using forest stewardship as a political tool and the courtroom as the weapon to impose new rules. During the 90s, the timber wars were used by candidates to stir up their base and build support in local communities. This made it increasingly difficult to find common ground.
Filling the vacuum of policy were legal activists encouraged by the “Dwyer decision” in the early 1990s that placed many restrictions on federal forests in an effort to protect the spotted owl. Environmental lawyers argued that nothing was ever accomplished without a lawsuit. The problem, however, was that environmental lawyers came to lead the environmental groups, making this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nothing else worked because nothing else was tried.
Now, those on both sides of the issue and both sides of the aisle are beginning to work together to solve these problems. The evidence of this transition is widespread.
At the federal level, Democrat Congressmen like Brian Baird support efforts to restore burned forests with salvage logging, while Republicans like Dave Reichert support forest protections. At the state level, Governor Gregoire stands beside Lands Commissioner Sutherland to support the new forestry science. Non-profit preservation groups bring Republicans and Democrats together to support protection of important environmental lands.
These are just a few examples of how cooperative joint efforts are more likely to achieve positive results than the contentious politics of the “timber wars.”
There are, of course, still many challenges. Legislators and others must find ways to provide assistance to and work with family forest landowners who bear a heavier burden than others in these new agreements.
The agreements must also adapt as new science is available. Both sides must recognize that sometimes science will allow more harvesting and sometimes less. If either side sees “adaptive management” as a tool to slowly erode these agreements, the timber peace will again degenerate into the partisan and emotional bickering of the past.
At this point, however, the news is remarkably positive. Genuine agreement seems to be at hand and many who were previously at odds are taking steps to develop positive relationships.
For many years the timber wars defined Washington politics. We need to take the time to recognize and celebrate a new chapter.