The Political Outdoors

Defending the timber industry

By Ron Parker

Pioneer Press

Fort Jones , CA

530-468-5355

mailto:pioneerp@sisqtel.net

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Page E10, Column 1

It's very rare to hear about a judge from the higher court defending the timber industry.  It was such a judicial statement that caught my eye in a recent article in "The Oregonian," a newspaper out of Portland , Ore.

Judge Smith resides in Pasadena , Calif. , and sits on the 9th U.S. District Court.  This court is the highest court in the western sector of our nation and known for its liberal tilt and tendency toward blocking logging operations throughout the western states.  Most of us that have been involved in covering our nation's renewable natural resource issues are aware of the fact that this court has a reputation of laying down decisions that have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Smith wrote a 10-page opinion that cited statistics on the decline of timber communities in Oregon , which riled a couple of his colleagues sitting on the bench.  Such doesn't come as a big surprise.  Smith was appointed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush last year.  Being raised in the Pendleton, Ore. , area, he has first hand knowledge of problems plaguing our national forests, the timber industry and other renewable natural resource industries.

"In my view there is a correlation between sometimes over-board court injunctions halting the flow of lumber and the dramatic decrease of employment in logging communities throughout the Pacific Northwest ," he wrote. He also claimed that judges on his court have erected so many legal hurdles, the logging in national forests has nearly become impossible.

Smith's stance on logging issues, instigated by a lawsuit over a small Idaho timber sale, along with his documented opinion, could lead higher courts to examine just how deeply courts should pry into the details of federal logging decisions.

Naturally, Smith is getting a lot of flack from a couple of his liberal colleagues sitting on the other side of the bench.  Senior circuit judge Warren J. Ferguson and justice Stephen Reinhardt, both appointed to the bench by President Carter, claimed that, "Smith had no evidence whatsoever, assigns to the court of our circuit culpability for the status of the timber industry and impugns the last several decades of our circuit's environmental law jurisprudence."

Ferguson and Reinhardt claim that the courts were not the cause of the downfall of the timber industry in the northwest, that the industry itself created its own demise by stripping the forests and flooding the market with cheap timber.

All but the most naive in our society would take to heart the opinion of these two justices.

Those of us that have been following issues related to timber harvest plans are very much aware of the fact that since the late 1970's, laws have been passed mandating the protection of the environment of surrounding landscapes, streams and wildlife habitat.  Strip logging is nearly a thing of the past and occurs only when suggested and performed when environmental conditions make such a demand to accommodate the health of the surrounding forested areas or wildlife habitat.

It's refreshing to see someone on the U.S. 9th District Court with some common sense and knowledgeable of the destruction the judicial decisions this court has had on the financial wealth of hard working families, local economies and, most of all, the health of our national forests.

Far too long, have the decisions of this court ruled that logging is an evil industry, stripping our forest of old growth timber, driving the spotted owl and other creatures out of existence and polluting our streams and rivers.  Nothing is further from the truth.  Timber harvest operations under proper timber harvest plans - now mandated by law - are actually in place to benefit the health of our national forests, our nation's wildlife and our nation's fisheries.     

(Permission to post from the publisher.)