A terrible thing is happening in the backwoods of our forests of Washington, and no one seems to be able to hear the sound of it. Our primitive play lands are being encroached upon, our natural fresh water supply is being spoiled with sediment, and our diverse wildlife is at risk of being permanently erased from existence. Unbeknownst to us, the American taxpayer, we are funding our own government, the National Forest Service (NFS), to trade old growth forest lands, for second growth or clear-cut swaths of acreage within the Cascade Crest. The NFS needs to change its policy towards land exchanges by adopting to purchase them rather than swapping acreage with other untouched forests in the Cascade Crest. Like numerous other ecological problems plaguing the globe, the roots lie in actions that were taken many years prior.

In the case of the Cascade Crest, it was the Northern Pacific Land Grant of 1864 that marked the start of the headache for the land managers of this particular piece of land (Connelly, Gorton B1). In exchange for the transcontinental rail line connecting the east and west, the Secretary of the Interior gave the rail builders every other square mile of land within 40 miles of their tracks. After the railway was completed, the tycoons found no more need for their share of the lands and they were sold to the highest bidder. One of these high bidders was Frederick Weyerhauser, founder of the infamous Weyerhauser Company, who bought 900,000 acres (Connelly, It’s Back B1). Who knew then what would become of his company’s legacy of reaping the resources of his new prized possession? Fast forward to modern times now, and we are left with a checkerboard configuration of public owned National Forest lands and privately owned, and usually clear-cut, timber company harvest fields (Fries B6).

Back in 1996, when, then Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt signed, “the most complex habitat conservation plan ever approved for U.S. timberland,” things were looking pretty grim for our public lands (Taylor B1). The only thing between the security of precious wildlife habitat and a chainsaw and bulldozer was a promise made by the former rapacious clear-cutting company. The promise of increase habitat Protection standards was in exchange for another promise made by your tax dollars. The National Forest Service gave the Plum Creek Timber Company what amounts to immunity from any litigation that would halt the destruction of forest for the life of the agreement, 50 years (Westneat B1). With the always optional possibility of extending this contract for a total of 100 years of deforestation, compounded with already declining old growth timber. Hardly the proposed habitat protection that the plan is supposed to require.

Sure the land deal sounds sweet at first and that’s what the timber companies try to sell you. The swaps consist of the people conceding a small amount of their public lands, with a disproportionately larger amount of the timber company’s holdings. What could be wrong with getting more land from an exchange? It is more acreage that can be protected. More habitats that can be set aside for future generations to enjoy. The fact is, it will take generations for the land, that is given so generously, to rebound to the state it was before being chopped to stumps by a timber company. Weyerhauser tried to pull a fast one but was not fooled by the 9th Circuit Court. The judges there decided that they needed to take a second look at what was going to happen when their proposed land exchange was implemented. Their plan left the company open to less restrictive state regulations for their logging than the current standards that the company employs.

If you thought trading old growth for clear-cut forests, in need of expensive Clean ups, was the only hit to the taxpayer’s Pocket receives, think again. With all the land that is being cleared of lumber, combined with encroaching developments, and ever increasing and dividing roadways, there are the hidden costs of depleting wild lands. All the starving animals have to be fed that no longer have grasslands in the winter for feeding. Herds travel through sparsely covered lands marred by logging practices and emerge on the other side of the mountains famished. In 1997 it was estimated that over half (56%) of the elk inhabiting the Cascade Crest were being fed during the winter, in order to protect herds from extensive starvation (“Aid” B2). You have heard about the causalities that logging has caused and the species that it endangers, but what about the animals that simply suffer?

The timber companies would try to convince you that swapping these lands would allow for an eventual solid forest land that would encompass the entire Cascade Crest. In this case they would be correct. This type of land reconnection is what the most of the environmentalists have been asking for all along (Foster A1). A plan that would manage the entire Cascade Crest ecosystem as a whole, and not one that would micro-manage small individual acres. “Planning on a landscape wide basis is the answer”, according to Melanie Rowland, environmental attorney (Taylor B1). But at what costs would this completion be achieved? According to the Plum Creek deal, the cost of an already endangered species, the Northern Spotted Owl. It is hard to imagine how “incidental takes” of endangered animals in one area can be offset by the potential increase of the same species in another (“Cutting” A12). If the species simply goes extinct, then how do the other areas’ populations increase?

Land exchanges within the Cascade Crest are threatening to tear down forest lands that sustain hundreds of species of animals, by trading logged lands for forested lands. Purchasing these lands from the timber companies would better serve the resources that are located within these areas. What are at stake is not only the beauty that the outdoor provides, but the livelihood of the people and animals who live in and around the land. Logging has long been a fact of life for these forests and the only way to stop the destruction of more prime habitat is to purchase outright the areas that are endangered.

In this day and age of global warming and smog, the one and only thing that can restore the balance to nature is preservation of natural lands. The Cascade Crest is particularly in danger due to its high accessibility of a huge population nearby. The resources of these lands are slowly being polluted and destroyed while we sit and do nothing about it. It is time we put the investment in the environment that’s been longing to happen and preserve these lands for our future generations.

Works Cited 

1) “Aid to be sought to feed starving wildlife.” Seattle Times. 20 Jan. 1997: B2

2) “Cutting Timber, Protecting Wildlife.” Editorial. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 27 Jun. 1996: A12

3) Connelly, Joel. “Gorton to Introduce Land Swap Plan for Central Cascades.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 5 Jun. 1998: B1.

4) Connelly, Joel. “It’s Back to Drawing Board for Land Swap Court Halts Logging, Orders Impact Work.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 20 May 1999: B1.

5) Foster, Heath. “Historic Land Swap Proposed Thousands of Acres on the Table.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 17 May 1997: A1.

6) Fries, Jacob H. “Cascade Crest is Called Endangered.” Seattle Times. 21 Jun. 1999: B6.

7) Taylor, Rob. “A Timber plan that’s wrapped in green protecting habitat – or undermining it?” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 25 June 1996: B1.

8) Westneat, Danny. “Logging that will protect wildlife? – Plum Creek plan hopes to do both.” Seattle Times. 26 Jun 1996: B1.