THE LOGGING DEBATE

Is there a middle ground?

By TOM HONIG, Editor

        A generation ago, environmentalism was a movement embraced by people across the political spectrum. Time Magazine once did a piece remarking that liberals and conservatives both wanted the environmentalist vote, and were working hard to get it.

        It was a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who established the Environmental Protection Agency. But now, there are those who are accusing the Republicans of trying to render the agency meaningless.

        Times have changed, and the environment has become a big issue for Democrats. Some Republicans, especially those in some Western states, have gained political traction by blasting environmentalists, blaming them for electricity shortages, wildfires and recession.

        Observing that fight seems strange to those of us in Santa Cruz County, where environmentalism in one form or another has been the dominating political and social issue of the last generation.

        No one can get elected here on a platform of paving things over. Yet environmentalists still see the need to fight. Instead of a fight between environmentalists and developers, the battle pits staunch enviros against compromising enviros.

        Take logging. Those who cut trees for a living have faced all sorts of criticism -- even those who say that their tree cutting actually helps the forest.

        In the aftermath of the Southern California fires, I read extensively about the causes of the blaze. Predictably, some pro-loggers took the position that environmentalists had helped cause the fires by not allowing any timber clearing.  That accusation was false: published reports confirmed that the cause – in addition to hot, dry Santa Ana winds – was that the lack of smaller fires in recent years had led to a buildup of shrub and chaparral that helped fan the flames.

        Also, the damage from the fire was made worse by development into the mountains above San Bernardino.

        So what does that mean for Santa Cruz County? Here in this part of California -- away from the Santa Anas -- some folks are worried about the buildup of growth in the San Lorenzo Valley. And here, those who oppose logging have prevented forests from being thinned.

        Responsible loggers like those at the Davenport-based Big Creek Lumberii Co. say that the forests are in dire need of thinning. There are at least five times as many trees in some areas as there were in pre­logging days, when sturdy first-­growth redwoods dominated the forest.

        Yet some logging opponents blame the fire danger on the loggers. They say that their tree­cutting practices are so irresponsible that they leave behind enough downed branches that the fire danger is made worse.

        I’ve covered logging issues off and on for the last generation, and my trust lies with the responsible loggers. Bud McCrary, an owner of Big Creek, is a true environmentalist, one who has always respected the natural environment even while harvesting trees. He's devoted his life to supporting the health of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and I believe it when he argues that proper logging methods improve the health of the forests -- and make them less likely to burn.

        Too often, these environmental issues become so emotional and so polarized that reasonable debate becomes impossible. Yet even on this rainy weekend, people living in these mountain areas ought to be concerned about the risk posed by overgrown forests.

        This debate -- like many environmental issues -- focuses too much on the fringes. Logging operations are not all evil, and neither are environmentalists. There is such a thing as a reasoned, moderate position here.

        The state Department of Forestry generally is responsible for the awarding of logging contracts, and its employees too often have been unjustly accused of a bias toward the logging industry. Complicating the matter is that Santa Cruz County officials have initiated legal action to gain control of logging regulations. Typically, the county has opposed timber operations, even those that in my opinion ought to have been allowed.

        Former Supervisor Jeff Almquist has publicly acknowledged that the majority of the people in his district are opposed to logging in principle -- and that as their representative, he has as well.

        Should logging be curtailed? Is the state a better regulator than the county? Could logging cut down the fire danger -- or would it only make things worse? Is there a way to guarantee that tree-­cutting is done in such a way to thin out the forest and help prevent fires? Or should all logging be banned?

I'd like to know your opinion. As much as Californians care about the environment, it seems like major damage like the Southern California fire continues no matter what steps we take. A future column will take a look at what some of you have to say.

To comment on the issues of envi­ronmentalism, logging and the eco­logical health of the San Lorenzo Valley, send an e-mail to opinions@santacruzsentinel.com, or drop a note in the mail to "Opin­ions, " care of the Sentinel, 207 Church St.. Santa Cruz, CA, 95060.

©Santa Cruz Sentinel  Sunday, November 9, 2003