Clear Cut Crisis

This program was made possible in part by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And whether one is concerned about owls or elk or salamanders or salmon or loggers, that forest system is falling apart. "These folks are trying to sell a myth to the American public." "If the environmentalists are trying to bury the American timber industry six feet under, why?" "We are not degrading the environment we're managing this resource under controlled conditions." [Music] [Music] The old-growth forests of the northwest have brought out the best and the worst in us. Each person looks at these trees and sees a different picture. A picture on which no one can agree. We've heard from preservation groups, lawyers, logging companies, the Forest Service, all institutions. But what

about individuals? People like Debbie Mylie an office manager and logger's wife, Mark Liberman scientist with the Audubon Society, and John Thomas, a logger. Each of their lives is tied to the forests. Each one wants the forest to live on--but for very different reasons. "All I know is I'd like to have a job next year, and my job is to provide logs to a saw mill so that 60 people can work." "One of our bottom lines is, uh, is wildlife, of course, that's our main concern is wildlife and wildlife habitat. So at a minimum I would say we want to prevent species extinction." "There has to be a balance. People have to count as much as animals do, somewhere along the line. Our life has to have some value to it too. And that they don't seem to take that into consideration." "I feel sorry for some of these logger guys that were Marines and did two tours in Vietnam and came home and were spit on and humiliated and

spent 20 years in therapy and now they're trying to get to be whole human beings again, sitting out here working in the woods, and the same guy with a bandana on and the beads is kicking him out of his job again telling him he's a no-good son-of-a-bitch for cutting down a tree!" "We're not going to sacrifice multiple use and all the other things that we expect from public lands in order to create a few more jobs for a few more years." "We want to know that we can work tomorrow, next year, ten years from now and 20 years from now. That's what the planning process, that's what research, that's what this whole educational thing's supposed to have done, is that we'd have a continuum. But with preservationists, you don't have a continuum." "But even so, we can't take the public land hostage to bad management on private lands and give up those other uh, those other resources that Americans have a right to expect. These are natural forests after all, they're not Douglas County forests or Marion County forests or Weyerhaeuser forests or belonging to any other community, they belong to all the people."

"I resent the fact that on the east coast most of the publications they read and most of the media that they see all talks about that chainsaw cutting down that last tree, you know, that rip roar of the chainsaw cutting through that tree, and what they never, ever, ever talk about is the fact that once that tree is cut down, within a year we're out there re- planting that to make sure that it grows back up, and that you have to have an 80% success rate within a five-year period after you plant those trees. I mean, those things never get talked about, all you hear about is cutting down that last tree, and we're not doing that." "Wherever you want to go, if, you know, there's going to be an increasing demand for wood fiber and it will be met. Now, how environmentally sound that meeting will be, I can't tell you. I do know that in Oregon, with our infrastructure, in-place infrastructure to manage and protect forest, we're not, it doesn't make them virginal but it at least makes them renewable and it makes them non-polluting and it makes

them sustaining for people and for the forest itself. And we still hear birds cheeping out here." "Areas are not just put aside for no reason, they're put aside for very important purposes. And if we can show, and I believe we have, that that's not sufficient to maintain our wildlife populations, then I would say that it's not enough." "It isn't wasted. How in the hell can you say it's wasted when it went to provide what America is supposed to be? Schoolhouses, stores, railroads, bridges, all the rest of that stuff. How in the hell is that a waste? Why should it stop? Look what you get? What's wrong with this? What is biologically, what is aesthetically, what's socially, what's morally wrong with this?" [Music] Mr. "Mr. Hampton, we're in a new environment, a new community. I have about four million acres of trees.

I haven't thought about what I'm going to do with those trees. I want to ask you, when you think about those four-million acres of trees, and you have the ultimate decision in terms of how they should be used, what do you see when you see those four million trees?" "I see an abundance of economic and social opportunities. I see the ability to use enlightened management on those acres so that we can continually produce a balance of products and economic opportunities for the people that work in the industry." "Such as, what kind of opportunities?" "The state of Oregon, by way of example, has 80,000 people directly employed in the forest industry. We're the largest employer here, and as a consequence we have some 80,000 families directly dependent on our ability to manage these renewable resources." "Mr. Howard, let me ask you, if you had to take a look at this four million trees, four million acres of trees, what do you see when you see those trees?" "I see wildlife habitat. I see complex

natural communities. I see watershed protection. I see the possibility of a sustainable economic base through forestry. I see that there are probably some areas in there that are going to be so beautiful, so valuable for wildlife habitat or for whatever reason that you don't cut trees in those areas." "OK. What about that, Mr. Hampton? He sees a lot of other things, he's talking about the ecosystem there, he's talking about wildlife. Do you see those things?" "I completely agree with him. That's the way our forests are managed today. We can maintain a continuous output of a variety of products, including wildlife, including scenic set-asides. And the industry fellows supports those." "And you--" "I've, I've got to say, that's not the way our forests are managed today, the way our forests are managed today is that those other values are paid attention to only after the last tree has been cut,

the last dollar-profit has been extracted, or the attempt made to do that, and then the environmentalists, wildlife, watershed protection, and those other things get what's left." "He's got it exactly inverted. And the problem is that Bill's had it the other way so long that we're now down to the point where there isn't much productive potential left on some lands." [???] "The two sides can't even agree on the basics, you know, what is old growth, how much is left, the chief of the Forest Service said before the United States Congress the other day exactly what you dispute, he did say that 90% of the original old growth Pacific Northwest is cut. Now that's the first time I've heard the Forest Service say this. It used to come out of the Wilderness Society, so we in the middle as journalists trying to find, shake some truth out of these two sides. We're constantly tracking these moving targets. They're not only jobs, they're how much old growth or creatures. The salient point here is that one single creature, the sort of the poster child of the old growth, the owl, has brought everybody here. This is what the crisis is. We have a law in this country called the Endangered Species Act. It says protected

species, if it's going under, a single species according to some of the best scientists in the world is dying because of logging. That's what these scientists say. So now all sides are trying to decide, you know, who's exactly causing it, how do we get to this point. But this argument you just saw here I think illustrates this thing -- is there a 90% cut, is there 80% cut, does it make really a difference if we finally settle on 75% of it is gone?" "Okay. Miss J-- Miss Johnson? Let me ask Miss Johnson a point if I can. Miss Johnson, what about your involvement in the timber community?" "Yeah, I work with about fifty-thousand grassroots people in Oregon, and my family has been here a long time. I'm the fifth generation Oregonian in my family and I'm not that different than most of the people I work with." "Do you take any responsibility for what we all must agree is some decline in the ecological system in our forest today?" "What we would take responsibility for is anything less or more than a productive, sound,

sustained yield of the forest, of a variety of things, both the things that Mr. Hampton and the things that Mr. Howard discussed. The problem that our people are having is that the polarization of this issue is not, it is not bringing about solutions. In four million acres, there are a number of things that a brand new community of people would decide to do with that -- set some aside for their own enjoyment, maybe set a little other aside for visitors' enjoyment, but certainly start utilizing, in reasonable, sustainable quantities, part of that forest for their own productivity." [male]"Let's think about that. I want to think about that." [woman]"Give them a way to support themselves." [male]"Dr. Buter, can you tell me what are the economic issues involved in this today, what should we really be focusing on when we're talking about old growth and we're talking about--" [other male] "What kind of trees, are they natural, are they man-made, are they young trees, old trees? A nice balance of age classes, is this 1850 or is it 1950? Or or 1990?"

[male] "Then what's wrong with the plan to cut old growth and do new replanting?" [other male] "We've just completed a study in Oregon that shows that a, a high amount of success doing exactly what we're hearing about--" [male] "What's the problem?" [other male] "The problem is that we don't have a good record of replanting monoculture or just two or three species forest. We do not have, we've only been replanting for about three decades. We do not know what's going to happen when when global warming comes in. What we, the issue here is that maybe it's three-hundred-thousand acres, maybe it's three-million acres of old growth. The issue is there's about 10 or 15 percent left out of that original ancient forest. Recent research in the last 15, 20 years has shown us that all growth forests are extremely complex, they're extremely integrated with a lot of other, a lot of other things in the ground, mushrooms, animals a whole complex of life forms, very, very complex, very important in terms of providing water, air, clean habitat for fisheries, the whole bit. The thing is, if we convert those to industrial plantations which the Forest Service is doing with 80-year rotations, which industry has been doing for quite a while, we convert a very

complex ecosystem into a very simple ecosystem. And the fact is we have lost a lot of other values and we have certainly, ...do not know what the long-term effect of that's going to be." [male] "Well that might be important, but what about these families? What do you say to Mr. Hampton. What do you say to Miss Johnson when they have generations involved in this?" [other male]"I say, let's look at the large picture. This is not just owls versus public opinion--" [Miss J.] "Let's do that. In fact, let's don't...." [male] ....let's say four and half billion board feet of exports annually by timber instead in the northwest." [Miss J] "Let talk about what you've already said---". [male] "Let's look at mill automation which is 15% down, employment's gone down down, 15% by statistics from Oregon Employment Division,15% reduction in mill workers' jobs, and a 15% increase in cut, off the forest in Oregon." [other male] "Are you saying that's related to the timber industry's conduct?" [male] Timber industry's conduct has been reprehensible as far as I'm concerned. "Reprehensible?" "Reprehensible. They are exporting four-and-a-half billion board feet of raw logs a year, they're trying to make this whole media campaign to blame, blame the supply problem of

logs in the northwest on owls and environmentalists, and what it boils down to in large part is automation of mills and exporting of timber and a very high demand in the United States that needs to be reduced." Well you are, implicit in this argument, you are implying that the timber industry and the timber community is not as concerned about the environment as every other member of the public" "Well I make a distinction here. I hear it just the opposite way. Just a question about that. Do you say they are not as concerned about the environment?" "I think there's a difference between the timber industry and the timber community, and you said the timber industry is not concerned about the environment?" "When we have men and women in the street who are mill workers complaining about not being able to get jobs, and the very companies that employ them are exporting one log in four to mills in Japan and China and Korea--" "And Mexico" "--that indicates that we have an industry that does not have the interests of the community at heart. We have an industry called the the know are saying this. . . "Mr. Hampton says he doesn't have the interests of the community at heart? He's built communities,

he's provided jobs, he's provided automation "And he doesn't explort logs" he's improved said he doesn't do that for a lot. And I think you've taken a good person for an example. "Mr. Hampton, are you the exception though? I mean can you say-- "I don't think so, I think the majority of the industry is behaving in a similar manner. The minority of the companies who are large private landowners are the ones who are providing their stockholders with the option of export markets." "But we drive through these areas, we see clear cutting," "Of course, this is a very--" "--we see a depletion of old growth." "We certainly do" "We see a loss of jobs for people who are in the timber industry, right? As a product primarily of setting aside these timber sales and lawsuits which make them unavailable for processing." "Mr. Howard and other people are putting you out of business?" Definitely, that's true, that is absolutely [right]. "Mr. Howard, you're the problem, you're the problem, it's not the timber industry." We've cut more timber every year in the last ten years than the year before. During that same time we have record-level cuttings. We have 15 percent fewer people working... "Let's talk about that." "Isn't that because of automation though?" I mean Mr. Hampton has improved the way his product is being marketed.

The industry is very diverse and some are improving. As an industry overall, we have 15,000 people not working that were working ten years ago. All these people have done nothing to show any concern about retraining those people or making investments in this community. That's not me. "Why should he be responsible? I mean, can't you be" responsible as well if you're concerned about the environment? "I thihnk it's a joint responsibility." It's a joint responsibility. "We're dealing here with public lands and the issue we talked about earlier of trying to attain that balance so that we can have sustainable forest and sustainable economies, and as Mr. Hampton just said we're about out of old growth it's a depleted resource where we're doing the thing that we were not going to do. We've lost the balance that we talked about initially and the payment in the long run it's going to be not only workers losing their jobs anyway which they are. But loss of long-term productivity of these forsts and loss of the the long term sustainability of the economy which depends very much on these forests including we believe the retention of old growth for the diversifying growing economy in the northwest. It's emphasizing fish, tourism, outdoor recreation, economic diversification. We have an industry that's dominated the state. . .

wants to continue doing it. Will Mr. Hamptom's efforts bring tourism bring industry, bring employment, build schools. I mean, weren't they a critical part in building the economy in this state? I think they were, and I think 20 years ago and 50 years ago what Mr. Hampton did was probably appropriate. "And now he's being get all the blame. Can he get some credit for Here's here's the reason. What Dr. Buter said a minute ago is true. We're down to the last 10 percent. And that's always worth a lot more than the first 10 percent. "But where were you when we had 90 percent?" Where were you when Mr. Hampton would have been listening, I assume? Why weren't we raising these issues fifty years ago? "Well I was when I was not born..." Not you but I mean what about the environmental concerns should have beenve been raised 50 years ago? And Mr. Hampton was too powerful for your voice to be effective? "Here's the point. I mean let's let's forget about what's happened or even what's going on right now. Let's talk about the future and where do we go with that and one of the problems that I've got is that we can't get the timber industry or the

Forest Service to talk seriously with us about the idea that yes that remaining 10 percent should be protected and we do need to find compassionate ways to solve these very human problems that are going to result if we do protect it. They don't just "Like when you confiscated the Redwood National Park lands. You did a heck of a job up in Northwest California. Those people are still waiting for their government bailout, Mr. Howard and the people in Oregon in Washington don't want that. They want to work for a living the way they have and can't continue forever. There is something unique Mr. DeBonus about old growth and that is that it is a very evasive resource. You can't tell us what it is, you tell us what it is when you want to scare the hell out of people that the last tree is going to hit the ground. Then you tell us something different when you want to talk about how much you want to save. This business about cuttind down 90 percent Dr. Ogletree is just a bunch of bunk. Doctor Whitelaw? Let's suppose we all agreed that none of us have been bad in the past. Let's assume that suddenly the nation says for whatever reasons

we would like to save the remaining old growth forest. And suppose and another whole heroid consumption, I fear, that we've agreed on the definition of that and some of us think it's too little and some of us think it's too much. If that's the case and if it costs jobs of Oregonians in lumber in the lumber and wood products industry, what obligation do we have to keep them employed in that industry in the communities in which they grew up? And what obligation do we have to help them get employment wherever they end up in whatever sector or community. I'd be happy to respond to that because it's it's our folks that you're talking about. Our folks are hardworking, self-sufficient Oregonians, Washingtonians, Northern Californians. They just want a chance to work. They are resilient. They have been through economic downturns. They have survived those. Some have moved on to different industries moved on to other states. Others have stayed here and stuck it out. They are not asking for

handouts and don't want retraining and don't want federal bailouts. What they want is some sanity in this public decision process instead of the continued polarized glorified rhetoric. I'll take you to any timber-dependent community in Oregon you want to go to and you can pick any six loggers out of the coffee shop you want and sit down and talk to them about what they think of nature, how they feel about wildlife, whether they appreciate trees and and animals and fish and clean air and clean water. And there will not be a single person on this panel that will feel any more strongly about those issues than those folks do. "But I'm here and they're cutting our lifeblood. I mean they're saying let's cut. . ." These folks are trying to sell a myth to the American public. This is a choice... "What's our agenda?We're not of making money of the forests. "Control, apparently!" We're not exporting timber. What is our agenda? If the environmentalists are trying to bury the timber industry six feet under, why? "Mr. DeBonus, your overreaction I think says something about it. The issue is not... " Well why, I've been listening to this for 12 years in the forest service and it's B.S.! "The issue is not environmental concerns.

If there are really better environmental ways to be doing things then let's put our heads together and decide how we're going to do that. The real issue is that they want to take productive natural resource working for us and set them aside just set them aside. I don't understand why we would do that. If there are truly unique areas, fine! Let's agree on them. What if that productive resource has several different uses? "It does!" that is that it cannot serve equally well. That is what if we cannot have our old growth and cut it too. To answer your question Dr. Whitelock, what's your response?"If others, not these environmentalists and not these industrialists, who think each is lying to the other and to the American people. Shove that aside. If the nation says, geez you know we'd like to have a little less cutting of the old growth forest. "Why would that be?" Wait a minute. Let me,

we can go back to the why - what if they say it. I mean, we don't question them on a whole bunch of other things. Let's hold that for the moment. And if it costs jobs in this state how does it differ from for example our concern that we don't want acid rain in the east and therefore we want to impose regulations that cause coal miners in West Virginia to lose their jobs. Differs in a very important work. Let me just let me let me make one point. If, would we be willing to increase our taxes to pay for extending unemployment benefits for the coal miners. As I would be willing to for the loggers. That is a Band-Aid measure and it is not a permanent solution. The fact of the matter is resources are absolutely necessary for food and shelter. They're also absolutely necessary to create any new value in an economy. The trend is to shut down resource industries. That is not a long term solution for America. Oregon and Washington may be on the block now. But if

that trend continues and the pressure continues the very heartbeat of our economy and our society and the American dream of an opportunity and a middle class is gone. Mr. Passad, tell me why, why are we protecting the owl. I mean why is it important, in 1990 with Ms. Johnson having friends or relatives who are unemployed, Mr. Hampton trying to diversify his timber industry because of the economic impact, Why are we protecting the owl as opposed to protecting people in Oregon, Washington, and California some people, who we all admit, some people are losing their jobs. Is it a fair balance? [male] Professor Ogletree, we have cut 90 percent of these forests in order to satisfy a range of social demands including the demands of local communities. We are down to the last 10 percent. You talked to at beginning about four million acres of trees. This is not so much an issue of trees as it is a forest. These forests are living things. They contain trees up to eight feet in diameter, 200 feet tall, and

in some cases over a thousand years old. These are not the kinds of trees that people have in their backyards. They're a resource that's comparable to the Grand Canyon to Yellowstone to the most I think spectacular cultural or natural treasures that we have on this planet. But you're not worried about the impact of this preservation on Mr. Johnson's [inaudible]. Well we absolutely are worried about that. We care about the communities and the forest background equally. In the last ten years in the Pacific Northwest we've lost 28,000 timber jobs. There was not a hue and cry about that. It was because we were - It was because we were modernizing mills to remain competitive [inaudible] because we were trying to maintain corporate profit; it was because we were trying to export logs. The industry was not concerned about that -- we were concerned about. Well let me ask Dr. Raphael what about this. Is the debate between the interest of the people in the interest of these very species in the force is that the debate? Is that where it should be focused?

That is a big part of the debate and that's because of the history of public opinion through congressional actions that have said it is wrong to let species go extinct. That has been made very clear by the Endangered Species Act, and it's very clear I think in the National Forest Management Act. And it is a biological issue it's not looking at economic fact -- that's the biological reality of it, that's the last that's the last ditch. Now we want to do things, we want to manage forests so so that we don't get to that point. So we have other options. We don't save the last hour of the last marble [inaudible] or whatever other species we're concerned about. Well can we do this: What about amending the Endangered Species Act to say that biological issues are absolutely critical to our survival but yet we'll have to balance those issues with economic consideration. In the long term view of things, the next endangered species is going to be their grandchildren. What are you saying to the sixth generation of Johnsons who have been involved in the timber communities? What I would say is at this point in time we need to start addressing the larger picture of

recycling of exports of mill automation and how we're going to look at that huge picture in terms of what amount of timber is coming off the national forest? The national forests are public lands. The little bit remaining of the temperate rain forest that is left is an ecological unit that simply has gone beyond its biological capacity to be compromised. Social systems can be compromised, political systems can be compromised. Biological systems have a limit to the amount they can be compromised. And research is now indicating that the old growth ecosystem is beyond its limit to be compromised. So let me ask you this Mr. Dubose: I am 14-year old Jason. My grandfather was involved in the timber industry, in fact he died of a timber accident. My father was involved. My great grandfather was involved. And I'm 14 years old and I want to follow this important family tradition. We built communities, here we built schools here. I think we've been supportive of important

issues. And you know if there's a forest fire the loggers we're the first to go there to help. If there's if we see an injured animal in the forest, we're going to take it right to the veterinary hospital to treat it. Are you saying that - to me the 14-year old - that maybe there's something wrong and I'm thinking about following my family - I make a distinction between timber workers and community sustainability versus large timber corporations. But what you're proposing will have an impact on timber workers. Absolutely, we are going to make more logs available through banning log export. [inaudible] So more timber available through ... sustainable forest [inaudible] Now let's substitute a whaling family in a whaling community for a timber community. Let's not do that. They have no relevance to this. The communities in Oregon may have cut old growth for five generations but there will not be a sixth generation of Oregonians cutting trees eight feet in diameter.

There are a finite number. [inaudible] Because you are going to set it all aside. There are a finite number of trees six and eight feet in diameter that comprise a forest ecosystem about which we know very little. And so ... I don't really have a choice for 14-year-old Jason. I mean I can't get involved in the timber community. I can't be as my father and grandfather and great grandfather, right? That's right. [inaudible] And Mr. Hampton, you made that decision for me? When we start this conversation I thought you were on my side. I thought so too. I mean I work in the industry - my father, my grandfather, great grandfather - now they're telling me that what you did - not you but what the industry did a hundred years ago and fifty years ago - is depriving me, a sixth generation Oregonian, or Washingtonian, of pursuing our family's livelihood. Is that an accurate criticism? Actually, the experience that I've had in the transition from the second visit, when my father first acquired the [unclear], he was operating on old growth and was one of the first to acquire second growth timberlands, and

we have over this forty year period of operations continued to modernize our plants and to utilize this equipment. And when I took over the management in 1955 with sixty employees, we have successfully built that operation up to where we are now employ 475 people and we are more mechanized, more modernized, more efficient, get more lumber out of the logs, are more productive, and that's a proper transition for anyone to make in a successful business. But so you're also destroying the environment that process. On the contrary, all of the logging activities are conducted under one of the most stringent forest practices acts in the nation. Oregon in 1972 passed an Oregon state forest Practices Act. Private landowners as well as public landowners adhere rigidly to the regulations out of that act. They also require regeneration immediately after harvest. You must have on the west side at least 150 trees surviving after a period of three years. Our company plants three times that many. So we are not degrading the environment, we're managing this resource

under controlled conditions. Let me ask you about that because when I look at this, when I look and I read the newspaper it says the northern spotted owl is threatened and close to becoming endangered. Is that argument not true? Is that point not true? That's what the Thomas committee believes, that's what the Fish & Wildlife Service believe, and I believe that it is an inconsistent situation all the way from California to Canada. One of the anomalies of this great debate about the owl is that the preservationist community anchors the owl survival on old growth but the Thomas report requires several hundred thousand acres of second growth as a part of the recovery plan. I find it very inconsistent. Well what about the environmental impact though? Don't you see that, well you can see that further cutting up old growth will have a pretty substantial impact on the environment. No, I won't. Why not? Because the conditions under which it will be harvested are under regulation by the Forest Practices Act.

The water quality, the regeneration, the road construction, the maintenance of the productivity of the soil are all a part of that act in this regulation. Old growth gives us clean air, helps to clean air, right? Second goal gives us more oxygen than old growth. And what about our water source, to help with the water source? We have protection the way our logging is done under whether it's old growth or second growth. OK and what about the impact on the various species that live there, that play an important part in our lives? While we are logging the old growth they move next door. To what? To next door. We don't.... To what? Second growth? They can do that. Let us See maybe that's the point - you throw that out but I'm wondering if that's a reality. We don't have a debate. If they can move to another habitat... Let me give you a simple answer. Five hundred year timber was once one year's old and grew into old growth and grew a different ecological system during the process of its evolvement. There's no reason we cannot continue to replicate the old growth that is here today.

[inaudible] The ability in our industry and the future of the 14-year-old you referred to and his children and his children is going to depend on one single common denominator and that is how much land in this region are we going to manage for a sustained yield of forest products? And the fact is over the last two decades we have seen a succession of compromises after compromise after compromise. In 1984 we passed a wilderness bill for example that doubled the amount of federally designated wilderness in this region. Mr. Monte's organization said it's the final compromise. Congress said it's the final compromise. The day after the bill passed Mr. Monti's organization said, "now we want the other 33 million acres of roadless areas." So until we stabilize the land base that's going to be dedicated to growing trees, there will be no stability. You eell us how much land there is and we can guarantee stability. Let me let me reverse roles here and let me speak to Jeff's child as he might listen ten to 15 years from now. Jeff Junior, your father and I argued hard and long over how much of the productive landbase

of the Pacific Northwest we were going to manage for timber production and how much of it we were going to put aside. And ultimately he prevailed, let's assume, a hypothesis, and as a consequence we reduced our production - both our domestic production and our exports - significantly. Unfortunately, Jeff Junior, as a consequence, demand from the developing countries increased proportionately. We began to strip the tropics. We began to mine Brazil, the Amazon, Indonesia, and Kalimantan in trying to supply world needs. We the population of the world. We the population of the United States, the population the Pacific Northwest, arguably the most preserved region in the world, decided that our ecological sensibilities required us to limit our production and now we don't have a tropical rain forest. All right. I would suggest that you start looking into your roots because chances are your father and your grandfather and your great grandfather before

him if they were timber industry workers went through long periods of unemployment, went through long periods of social chaos because the industry, historically, for 250 years has never proven itself a sustainable supporter of community life. The comment was made earlier by Ms Johnson that natural resource industries have built America, that they provided food, shelter, and clothing, but natural resource communities, natural resource industries, whether they be coal oil, timber, or others have never proven sustainable insofar as the communities they are involved. So in effect my ancestors in your view led me down Primrose Lane... No they didn't lead you down Primrose Lane, they were making a living surviving as best they could given the kind of political economy and the particular region of the country they were living in. Where was the government? Where were the environmentalists? Where were the groups to help guide them in a way so that we wouldn't have

had this problem? Or It was it inevitable? They were non-existent. In terms of that, because largely - the point I made earlier - the market prevailed in determining the harvest. The market prevailed in terms of the quantity of coal that was gouged from the Appalachians. The market prevailed as far as oil production. The market still prevails as far as oil production in Texas and Wyoming. And that's why those states are suffering now. And your advice to me in a few words would be what? Watch out. Mr. Montieth I'm thinking about running for national office in 1992. I want to be the environment president. I'm sure you're pleased to hear that, right? One of the things I'm concerned about and I've been reading a lot of literature in this debate about old growth and about the Northern spotted owl. I'm trying to figure out if I should be concerned about sustained yield and in fact what does that really mean. I want to make that one of the centerpieces of my

platform. Can you tell me a little about sustainability and whether I should make that an issue as a candidate for national office? I think you should. A sustainable economy can only come from a sustained yield of the various products that come off these lands. In our public lands because we have so over[inaudible] our private lands have the burden of providing those values. Sustained yield on public lands means a lot of things. It means sustained yield not only of wood products but sustained yield of water, of salmon, of elk, of recreation, of scenery. What we typically think of as multiple use that the law supposedly requires. How much time would you say we have left if we continue cutting at the rates we're cutting it now? If we continue cutting at these rates within the next few years we will have lost most of the significant old growth and the values of that forest. It's important to realize that -- what do you mean by few years? Three, four years, it's kind of like a shirt. At some point when you punch holes in a shirt before every piece of material is gone the shirt ceases to be a shirt. And this is what's happening on the forest. The ecosystems are unraveling. We're beginning to see

species go extinct. We're beginning to see the inability of ecosystem functions to occur. Species being lost, and there are many of them besides the spotted owl is just a very small part of them. We're losing water. We have municipal watersheds that are being degraded. We have small towns that are not only losing that but they're losing their ability to diversify their economy because the values - fish, recreation, tourism, are being lost as we ove rcut these forests. So it's important that we have that diversity if we want to have a diverse and sustainable economy as well. Mr. Howard, are we talking about three years? Is it that much of a crisis?This this debate, this problem, is being replicated all over the planet right now. What do you mean? I mean in other countries, in other parts of the world, ecosystems are being threatened, we're down the last five percent, we're down the last ten percent. We're driving species extinct. And as a matter of fact the message that we should be getting from all this - whether it's spotted owl, whether it's salmon, whether it's the last 10 percent of the old growth, is that we are pushing

the planet to the very limits of its ability to sustain society as we know it. A comment was made earlier that that in studying the old growth that we do have it's in bits and pieces and chopped up and all of that. One of my hypotheses is that it's pretty much always been like that. We've had wildfires, we've a lot of natural phenomenon that have affected old growth in various places and quite extensively in some cases. Mr. Low? Are we talking about three years or 50 years? That's an important difference isn't it? And that continues to change as new information comes up and how long that particular planning cycle is going to last and be valid depends on the amount of new information that we've got. But three years frightens me, if that's the accurate figure of the time we have left each It's meant to frighten you. Professor Ogletree... Meant to frighten me and what? And not be true? It's the politics of scarcity and the politics of fear. Jim's been at this a long time. We have trees that will be ready to harvest soon that we planted the first time Jim said we were three years from cutting the last of them and that's the God's truth. Doctor

Peter, where are we on the sustain [inaudible]. Are you concerned that we are going into a critical time period, is the timeframe really...? Our analysis in Oregon for example shows that there's three million acres of old growth as defined by 160 years of age or over, half of it is being proposed to be set aside or is already set aside. So there's a million and a half acres that would still be available for harvest and the rate of harvest planned for that is about 1 percent a year. So they would still be harvesting out in 100 years now. Dr Whitelaw, do we have to worry, do we have some time on our hands? There is some sense of increasing scarcity of something resembling older forests and society ... [inaudible] [inaudible] I don't want even going into that... Forget about old growth, right? And society, a bunch of us, feel that that increasing scarcity has value that should be protected in some way and it's going to cost us. It may cost us in higher housing prices,

it may cost us in a number of ways, but clearly there are also benefits. How much are you willing to pay for it? That's the issue. I think I can solve the problem. You can advise me, you can advise me in a way would... I am ready to wave the white flag and solve this problem and give Jim Montieth exactly what he wants. I have with me a fund raising letter from his organization that says we're cutting 60,000 acres of these forests each and every year. If it's going to be gone in three years that's 180,000 acres. Give me a contract. I will sign it right now, tonight, to save 100 180,000 acres, if it's going to be gone in three years. Let's sign the document and we can solve this problem and get on with our lives. The public forests at the moment are meant to supply a product that is not available on private lands because of the rapid cutting of the private sector forests from the end of World War II to the present. Mr. Eagan, what can I do to start reaching common ground in this debate? First you have to answer the question. This is very tough. Does a person who lives in Miami Florida,

or the state of Maine, or Columbus, Ohio where they don't have old growth forests, have a right ask that old growth in the Pacific Northwest be set aside? And I think they would probably answer: if they're national forests, I own them, so I have a right to ask that they be done whatever the majority says be done with them. The Forest Service is nodding you guys are in the middle, the public is telling you this one way or the other. So you have to answer that question. Then you immediately begin to think, OK, let's say the people in Miami and Columbus and Maine, these other places no longer have old growth forests, want these forests set aside. Are they willing to have these jobs on their backs? The sacrifice of these people on your hands? Wait a minute. I'm John Smith from Connecticut. I want to come out to Oregon and Washington, California to visit these beautiful floors. I don't want them cut. What you're saying, I have to pay more taxes because Ms. Johnson or Mr. Hampton or their families may be out of work? That's my responsibility? Right, the current president, President Bush, has already addressed that question and he said he would not.

He said the taxpayers don't owe these people who lose their jobs anything. He said if he compared them to the coal miners who are going to lose their jobs because of the new Clean Air Act which has recently been passed in the House and Senate. He said about five ten thousand people will lose their jobs because we're going to use cleaner coal and therefore we won't use this coal that these people in West Virginia mine, and therefore they'll lose their jobs. Should the taxpayers pay for that? He said no. He made a parallel between that and the Pacific Northwest. So if you're going to run for office you either have to take a position that you're with Mr. Bush on that or you're saying yes, the majority the public wants these trees set aside so the question is not should we set them aside is how do we take care of that sacrifice for the setting aside. OK, Ms. Johnson let me ask you, because I am inclined to go along with what Mr. Egan has to say, unless you can persuade me otherwise. I do believe as this constituent from Connecticut who told me that he's going to support me, that these forests belong to him; that they are as much his resource as they are yours, and he wants them to be preserved. He doesn't want any more cutting and yet he

says, you know it's a national resource but he doesn't want to pay if your family is unemployed. Should I accept his argument on that? Am I missing something? First of all, my good neighbors and I of Bliss would be happy to support a genuine sustained yield candidate. That's exactly what we want, and if that's your platform, you're our man. Sounds good so far. What do I have to give up?And invite John Smith out here from Connecticut because along with the privilege of claiming ownership of forty eight percent of the state of Oregon, which is what the forest land is here, publicly owned forest land, forty eight percent. There's also the responsibility to know the facts about it. What are the facts? What's the impact of if I support his view and say no more cutting of old growth? The facts are that Oregonians are among the most blessed of people on Earth. We live in a beautiful state blessed with four renewable base industries of fishing,

farming, ranching and timber. Not only do we have an abundance of resources that are renewable. We care about our state. We have passed strong environmental laws to protect our state. We have more trees growing today than we did forty years ago and we're very proud of that and we plan to continue to work very, very hard on that. We have hardworking, self-sufficient folks that want that quality of life and that lifestyle, that culture and the timber communities to continue. And yet we're faced with this nightmare. It's like we're a cadaver at an autopsy. This nightmare where there is a philosophy of preservation trying to pick our resource industries apart and set them aside and preserve them. Setting aside and locking up for virtually no multiple-use purpose whatsoever needs to be a tactic that is kept to only the most unique, most irreplaceable

points in the state. Let's see if we can do that. I want you to tell me what's wrong with Mr. Howard's position and what you can say to Mr. Howard that might help him understand your position. What hasn't he heard from your point of view that might make Mr. Howard kind of rethink his position on this issue? Mr. Howard, you and I basically disagree because your contention is that if human beings want to interact or want to manage nature and natural resources, that that is inherently worse than not interacting with it. And you and I would disagree with that 'til our last breath I'm afraid because I believe and trust that human beings do have the ability to interact and to manage resources, sustain them, make them even healthier in some cases, and that that is in fact what we should do. I think my point's been missed. I personally - my organization, my constituency - are people who have always

been wise use kinds of conservationists who support the ideal of multiple-use, sustained yield. Our problem is that we have drifted so far from the idea of having true balance, true multiple-use, true sustained yield, and true sustainable economies and a truly sustainable planet, that we're about to get ourselves in trouble if we don't start dealing with some of these things in a very different way than we have in the past. Where do you draw the line though, I mean how far are you willing to go in trying to sustain the environment when you know that it's going to cost real jobs for real people? My, again my personal view, is that the nation has, if not a legal obligation, an obligation of compassion, to help people who have developed a lifestyle based on the use of a resource in a

certain way and even though it's a public resource it's our resource, if we say that's no longer acceptable then I think we also have an obligation to help make a transition to something that leaves a sustainable lifestyle for them. It just doesn't sound concrete enough to me. Compassion is important and help is important, But I've got a family. We have billions of board feed going overseas that could be milled here at home and should be milled here at home. No one really has talked about that other than labor in the environment. We've talked about that a lot. There are lots of other things that we would support. But just take that one issue: if we decide to stop exporting logs, raw logs, don't you think Japan will go somewhere else? What Japan does traditionally is turns around and buys lumber. We are one of only two countries that export raw logs. And you're telling me now - because I remember this, I'm going to come back to you in five years now - if we stop exporting raw logs, we have nothing to worry about? Japan will continue to accept our products and will get more jobs for Ms. Johnson. [inaudible]. That's been that's been the track record of

Japan and every country that has previously bought logs from. That's not the only issue. Let's at least be clear with the audience. Professor Robins, what about that? If we stop exporting logs to Japan and say, no we're going to get more jobs, we're going to do a lot of other things, is that a good approach to take? In the first place, colonies export raw materials. Other forested regions of the Pacific Rim have stopped the export of raw logs. British Columbia and Indonesia. The United States is one of the major producers of timber that still engages in the export of raw logs in a major way. And so if we stop - if we stop - is it going to affect us, is it going to effect Japan? The Japanese will buy lumber. Won't that solve the problem of the economy? Won't that put a lot more people to work? Won't that allows us to protect ...? [inaudible] United States Senate today or yesterday I believe, or as we speak, voted to end raw log

exports in Washington, Oregon on state lands. They didn't do it on private lands, which is where a lot of these trees are still coming from. And so we've only taken the first initial step. After years of talking about it this crisis has forced the United States Senate to finally do it. They did it. And there's a pretty good chance that the Japanese will retaliate in this round of GAP talks and further exacerbate our trade imbalance as a consequence. [inaudible] They'll get their logs from Siberia, which is now moving into production. Is that realistic in terms of time, logistics, cost? Exceptionally realistic. Even if they get lumber from Indonesia, I'd rather see them get logs from the Pacific Northwest because the lumber in Indonesia is coming from logs that aren't ever going to be there as trees again in our lifetime or in the lifetime of this planet. Dr. Whitelaw, is there some common ground? Not tonight with this particular group. Why not? Why not? I think there are a couple of reasons. Well at least ten or fifteen.

But I think one of the difficulties would be this issue of definition. We are - this is a tower of Babel as far as what older growth or old growth is concerned. Let's assume we all agreed on a definition. There would still be legitimate differences of opinion because there are going to be winners and losers however this is resolved. How do we minimize the losers? I mean is there a way to allow Mrs. Johnson and her family to continue in timber? Well, we have a couple of options. One: we can sustain them as we have the family farm for years. Through subsidies? Unequivocally through subsidies. And we can concern ourselves not with the jobs, but rather with the people who once held those jobs. And they may get jobs elsewhere in other sectors, in other communities.

And to me that's the focus. The jobs are not interchangeable. We're talking about people that live in a certain culture, that have a certain background that in fact have operated, made investments in mills, in their homes, in your communities and the promise of sustained yield from a federal agency. The reason that we haven't got resolution at this point, there is no critical mass on either side of this issue from a political standpoint or, you know, we would have a solution tomorrow. Isn't the reason though, isn't the base reason the fact that we have this insatiable appetite to consume goods? Dr. "?Raphael?" isn't that one of the basic problems of changing our consumption patterns or really being more concerned about the environment in terms of public transportation, in terms of you know how we use water, how we pollute our air, I mean shouldn't we be debating that instead of the trees? If you want to get down to the ultimate fact of it is we should be looking at population growth. Maybe that's where it all starts and then from that point we start looking at the range of resources

that we continually demand. At the bottom of this issue with the Pacific Northwest are the Pacific Northwest forests and their ability to provide those goods on a biological basis. Yes there are X number of acres of old growth or undisturbed forests out there, but it exists in bits and pieces and patches that no longer function as a working ecosystem. And whether one is concerned about owls or elk or salamanders or salmon or loggers, that forest system is falling apart. Mr. "?Scott?" let me ask you, I want you to come to this fifth grade elementary school class in a small city in the Northwest and they want you to talk about their future. Describe to them what you think is going to happen. These group of 10 year-olds they're very starry eyed, they're very

concerned, they're very excited and you are there to talk to them about the future. What are you going to say? I would say that two generations ago, three children in each family might be able to find work in the timber industry. Two generations ago it was two children from each family. Now it's one. We are running out. We came to the Northwest and found an incredibly abundant resource, both in terms of fish, wildlife and forestry. It was nothing to go out and cut down acres of 6 and 8 foot diameter trees. They brought great prices. They were easy to take out. That era of abundance is over. Doctor, what would you say though to this group of 10 year-olds when they ask you to come and talk about the future. Is it rosy? Is it rosy to get a job, in the Northwest? Is it rosy, period, for these 10 year-olds who live in the Northwest, and you're thinking about their future? Are they in trouble?

Well it depends on whether they want to stay in the lumber wood products industry. And if they do? It is not nearly as rosy as it has been in the past. Their job opportunities in the timber industry have clearly declined. And it's irreversible? I mean what can we do? Are you talking just numbers of jobs? I think it's irreversible. Why did this happen? An extractive industry, and I appreciate a resource-based industry, resource-based economy. Every one we've had in the United States has systematically declined relative to other activities over time. [inaudible] It simply happens. I talked to some 10 year-olds actually on this very question in the towns of Forks, Morton, which are Washington State timber towns that are in deep trouble. And I have to say, now I didn't take - this is just a random sampling - a lot of these people have said their fathers told them: "Son, don't go in the logging business." What we should truly be looking at if we're talking about economic sustainability of communities, is value-added products with the logs we have here. Instead of exporting them, we should be keeping them here and

looking at value-added industry. That would give us more jobs. Absolutely. And that will basically prevent us from mortgaging the future of our young people. Right? That's one of the problems we have. Ms. Johnson? What can you say to me to reassure me that you haven't mortgage my future in what's been going on and what I've heard tonight? Preservation isn't it. Cutting more than the forest will produce is not it. There is no reason that a country that put men on the moon and brought them back again, does not have the science and technology and good common sense to figure out what sustained yield is, what the balance for man and animals and nature is. Put that into place and let's get on with it. We should be looking at exports, we should be looking at recycling, we should be looking at truly sustainable forestry on private, state and federal lands. [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Clear Cut Crisis was made possible in part by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This program was produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting which is solely responsible for its

content. This is PBS