While still in the formative stage, the latest bipartisan effort to solve the gridlock on our federal forests has already drawn a chorus of protest from seven environmental groups.
U.S. Reps. Greg Walden, Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader are working on the proposal, which seeks not only to protect key watersheds and conservation areas but also to revive the logging industry and keep forest communities alive without the crutch of county payments. Although forest health also is a central concern in the deliberations, the environmental groups are troubled by the some of the concepts under discussion, such as public trusts for federal forest lands.
This week they also dinged the process, demanding that it be more public. A couple of voices in that indignant chorus - namely Oregon Wild and Andy Kerr's Larch Company - sound a little off-key, given their prior involvement in closed-door negotiations toward a forest solution. Those two groups weren't so concerned about drafting legislation in public when they worked for months behind the scenes to help craft Sen. Ron Wyden's Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and Jobs Act - their participation coming to the chagrin even of environmental colleagues who were left out of the loop.
In that case, the participants argued that the cloaked effort was necessary to allow them hammer out a real solution to sensitive challenges - not a bad case to make. They further defended the effort because it was a collaborative effort, with a mix of timber and environmental voices, but their critics also had a point when they noted that it was a collaboration of the chosen, not of all comers.
In this case, the legislators say they are seeking out views from a range of stakeholders - forest communities, conservation groups, industry and members of the Natural Resources Committee - as they flesh out their proposal. We hope the result will reflect that.
Even if it doesn't, we expect the proposal will get exposure similar to that afforded the Wyden bill, with mark-up, hearings and vigorous public debate. Remember, as happened with the Wyden legislation, the rollout of a bill is no assurance of enactment. A new bill could be dropped, sidelined or revised beyond recognition.
The only sure thing is that there will be ample opportunity for all sides to lob rocks once the proposal is inked. At this stage of the deliberations, though, it seems like grandstanding to quibble over the shape of the table or who has a seat at it. Let's allow Walden, DeFazio and Schrader to focus on getting a detailed proposal on the table, and then the public - all of us - can debate its merits. - SC
ARTICLE
