Guest opinion by Tom Woodbury
Tom Woodbury of Missoula, Mont., has a home in Boise and is in litigation over Targhee and Southwest Idaho revised forest plans. This article first appeared in the Idaho Statesman.
Our national forests are held by our federal government in trust for the American people. The U.S. Forest Service, which is controlled by our president, acts as the trustee or steward of those lands with a sacred responsibility to manage them in a way that benefits not only the American people but all future generations as well. Thus, the law governing our forests establishes a system of accountability to the citizenry, owners of the forests.
Of note, the law prohibits timber harvest that would threaten the continued productivity of the land by not conserving the soils necessary for tree growth, or that would rob future generations of the rich biological diversity represented by the abundance of fish and wildlife that make these living forests, as opposed to industrial tree farms. In light of this patriotic duty to manage our forests in a manner that benefits our grandchildren, Americans of all stripes should be alarmed at the Bush administration's newest proposal to dismantle the system of accountability that has stood for 30 years and allow our land stewards to sacrifice our natural heritage to the short-sighted economic interests of a few well-connected industries.
The most shocking and reprehensible proposal involves exempting forest plan revisions from the requirement for environmental review. The first generation of forest plans adopted for each forest under the 1976 Forest Act has expired, and by law must be revised based upon the lessons learned in the first 20 years. These plans contain promises made to the American people to balance environmental and economic interests in managing our forests. Of particular note are minimum levels of old-growth habitat that were to be set aside to protect wildlife.
Old-growth forests take centuries to develop into the kind of complex habitat that a third of all forest inhabitants depend upon for their survival. They also contain the large trees most desired by the timber industry, and thus have been hit hard by historic logging. In revising their forest plans, the Forest Service is required to account for how much old growth is left. If they allowed logging below minimum thresholds—which appears to be the case in most forests—then they are required to study the impacts of this illegal timber harvest on wildlife diversity and revise the plan in a manner that allows the species to recover.
While this is clearly what Congress intended, the Bush administration has other ideas. They are proposing to overrule the will of the American people by allowing species like the great gray owl to be eliminated and by exempting plans from environmental review. Whether this is legal or not is beside the point. Americans should be outraged that their president would even propose such a complete abdication of sacred responsibility.
Mr. Bush is apparently not content with simply talking to God. Now, he wants to play God by leaving a legacy of species genocide.
Make no mistake about the administration's intentions. Given a free hand, the former timber industry hacks Mr. Bush appointed to oversee our forests will liquidate the last few percent of old growth habitat, calling it "forest health."
As centuries-old habitat is irreplaceable in human time frames, the long-term result will likely be permanent extinction of many forest owls, furbearers and woodpeckers. While many of these species are no longer considered "viable," our land managers refuse to monitor their populations, and then deny listing petitions under the Endangered Species Act for lack of population data.
Unless you are prepared to pass this shameful legacy onto your grandchildren, you must make your voices heard now, before your forests fall silent.
