Document text
50 °F 5 Day Forecast Friday, December 5, 2003 Today's News | Classifieds | Autos | Homes | Jobs | Tempo | eSouthernOregon | Home Delivery SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map EXTRA Newspaper in Education Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People CLASSIFIEDS Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Find a Rental Place an ad eSouthernOregon Automotive Communities Entertainment Publications Recreation Calendar CUSTOMER SERVICE Frequent Questions Advertising Information Home Delivery Employment Contact Us Media Kit Network Affiliate Email Story to a Friend October 30, 2003 Debate over compromise forest-health bill hits zenith By PAUL FATTIG Mail Tribune Sparked by concern over wildfires exploding in Southern California, the Senate on Wednesday began debating legislation aimed at making it easier to thin federal forests to reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires. A final vote could come today. The Wyden-Feinstein Forest Compromise, carved out largely by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow increased timber harvest on 20 million acres of federal forests while limiting the ability of opponents to challenge the timber cuts in court. However, the Senate compromise, backed by both sides of the aisle, would provide more protection of old-growth forests than related legislation already approved by the House. One of the principal sponsors of that bill — HR 1904 — is Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, a Republican who represents Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District. Advertisement The White House issued a statement Wednesday which "strongly supported" the Senate version as well as HR 1904. If approved by the full Senate, the Senate compromise and the House legislation would then be hashed out by a congressional committee before being sent to President Bush for his signature. "The strong statement of support from the president ... should go a long way in helping the Senate and House quickly resolve the differences," Josh Kardon, Wyden’s chief of staff, told the Mail Tribune. "The differences aren’t big enough to stand in the way of getting a bill to the president in the next couple of weeks," he predicted. The congressional action is being watched carefully by both the environmental and timber industry camps. Neither the Senate compromise nor the House legislation earns high marks from Dominick DellaSala, forest ecologist who directs the World Wildlife Fund’s Klamath-Siskiyou program. "Senator Wyden deserves some credit for trying to find a way to fix what’s wrong with HR 1904," DellaSala said. "But, because this is in such a compromise mode, we feel that there will be so many loopholes that old-growth forests will continue to be at risk from logging." He expressed concern that the House legislation would pave the way for harvesting more old, mature trees in remote sites, causing environmental devastation while doing nothing to reduce the threat of wildfire on rural communities. Moreover, he believes it largely closes the legal door to those whose only alternative is to take the federal government to court in an attempt to stop some logging activity. "We don’t support the Wyden compromise because it doesn’t protect the old growth, the trees that are the most fire resistant," he said. He supports amendments which would preserve more mature trees while ear-marking more funds to reduce wildfire threats near rural communities. "We need to get fuels reduction close to where people live," he said. "With what is happening with the California fires, we need to address the needs of the rural communities in the interface." Removing the old-growth trees would only reduce a forest’s resistance to wildfires, DellaSala reiterated. "The solution is not logging in the back country but working near homes in rural areas," he said. But Dave Hill, executive vice president of the Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association, believes the House version would be good for the state and the environment by improving the economy while reducing the threat of massive forest-killing fires. "The Senate has dragged its feet so far — we appreciate that it’s finally taking some action," he said. Although cautioning that he isn’t familiar with the specifics of the Senate compromise legislation, he expressed optimism that it could be reconciled with the House version. "One concern I have with the Senate compromise deals with the definition and protection of old-growth areas," he said, noting he doesn’t want it to include language that would protect those areas from thinning and forest management. Many of those areas, particularly those ear-marked for harvest activities, should be managed for logging and similar forest activities, he said. "If there is an outright ban on old-growth stands and they get blanket protection, then we will end up debating the old-growth question ad infinitum," he said. Reach reporter Paul Fattig at 776-4496 or e-mail him at [email protected] Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright © 1997-2003 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions Website Feedback 3 WEEKS FREE! ADVERTISERS SPECIAL SECTIONS Auto Finder Job Finder Home Finder Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Tempo Real Estate Showcase Food for Thought Hike of the Week Wellness Connection Outdoor Journal Moving to Southern Oregon? Volunteer Openings Prime Times