Logging Ban Vote Divides Earth Groups Environmentalists Not All Opposed To Cutting Timber On Federal Land

Environmentalists supporting logging on public lands? Has the world gone wacky?

Not exactly. The Sierra Club today is counting member votes on whether to call for a total ban of logging on federal land. That’s bringing local environmentalists out of the woodwork, speaking moderation.

“I am a member of the Sierra Club and I do not support the ban,” said Larry McLaud, who also is North Idaho representative for the Idaho Conservation League. “In many parts of the U.S., a ban on commercial logging makes sense, but not in the Pacific Northwest and North Idaho.

“I think there’s room for logging and should be logging - on a sustainable basis,” McLaud said.

That sentiment is echoed among some of the most active environmental groups in North Idaho and Eastern Washington.

“When you have the kind of road system you have in this forest, it would seem odd to say we’re not going to log anymore,” said John Osborn of Inland Empire Public Lands. There are 10,000 miles of roads in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, between 3,000 and 4,000 on the Colville National Forest, and 4,000 miles each on the Clearwater and Nez Perce national forests, he said.

Results of the vote among the Sierra Club’s 590,000 members are expected to be announced Monday, which is Earth Day. The dispute pits David Brower, the club’s first executive director from 1952 to 1969, against Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Brower is for the ban. Foreman, who also is a member of the Sierra Club board, is opposed.

The timber industry has become less and less dependent upon federal timber in North Idaho because less is being offered for sale. Still, the industry thinks the discussion of a total ban is crazy.

“It’s so bizarre that it’s not going to happen,” said Jim Beldin of Louisiana-Pacific Corp. “Should it happen, it would be devastating to industry.

“These aren’t tourism-industry jobs,” Beldin added. “These are jobs that provide jobs.”

The environmental community is uncomfortable with the ban discussion for other reasons. Totally locking up the national forests could mean significant over-logging and environmental destruction on private lands, environmentalists said.

Other activists are uncomfortable with the ban because they believe it makes it more difficult to deal with logging issues.

“Coming out with a zero-cut position makes it difficult for conservationists in the rural communities where the debate is at a much different place,” said Sam Mace, a Spokane environmentalist who grew up in a timber town in Oregon.

Rural activists may be in a position where saving a portion of a forest from logging is a significant accomplishment, she said.

But the debate is necessary - and is on the table because of mistrust, said McLaud of the Sierra Club. “The Forest Service allowed clear-cuts where they said they weren’t going to clear-cut, they have not left buffers where they said they were going to leave buffers,” he said.

, DataTimes