Re: “Pro/Con: Changes to Forest & Fish Law” (Aug. 14, Opinion):
I spent 37 years in Washington’s forest products industry and the last nine years teaching natural resources. I was present in the early 1980s when Stu Bledsoe, executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association, urged us to stop litigating and start listening. That moment sparked decades of stakeholder-driven collaborative solutions.
The proposed buffer expansions around non-fish-bearing streams aim to protect fish habitat, but the science shows current rules are working. Hardrock and Softrock studies found stream temperatures stayed below salmon thresholds, with temporary increases of 0.6-1.20 C recovering naturally. The impetus for more stringent buffers comes from the Department of Energy proposing not allowing a temperature increase above 0.30 C, a variation that occurs naturally.
The economic cost is steep: $4.1 billion board feet removed, $1.8 billion in lost stumpage value. Small forest landowners would lose access to $284 million worth of timber. The hardwood sector would see inventory reductions of nearly 8%. These figures come from nrsig.org, a science-based resource that offers transparent analysis and does not include lost tax revenue, lost wages and increased costs.
Let’s return to the collaborative spirit Bledsoe championed. We need policies grounded in science, not rigid thresholds, and a balanced approach.
Gene McCaul, Sumner
