Trumpers Decimated the Forest, and They Think They've Turned Out Just Fine

A glimpse into what we're up against

The US Forest Service has long been in an existential tug of war between environmental protection and timber production. With the hiring of those who have opposed federal control of public lands and who have private interests in cutting forested land, we can reasonably predict what challenges might likely lie ahead for ecologists.

A challenge, I think, is the ability to see concretely how these large, abstract policy shifts affect people and communities in America. The motivation behind such shifts is also obscure, as many of us have never lived in areas with big timber production and have not experienced first hand the pathos of that particular extractive industry.

Also, with much of our news cycle focused on other gripping headlines, there hasn’t been a focus on the new vastly inexperienced and underqualified good ol’ boys leaders heading up our USFS. We haven’t gotten to know Michael Boren, the new Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the Department of Agriculture. We haven’t heard of the lawsuits he filed against neighbors and community activists as he was forcing through his private landing strip project on public land. We haven’t heard about how the Forest Service in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area filed a restraining order against him because he taunted trail builders from his helicopter while they worked.

Nor have we heard about the new Chief of the US Forest Service Tom Schultz, who worked in the timber industry for the 6 years leading up to his appointment last month. He’s written at length about how local bureaucratic leadership is more adept at managing forests than the national government and how divestiture in federal lands is a sound strategy. Part of this conclusion is his observation that “the embers of disdain for the federal government and what some see as paternalistic management by an absentee landowner, continue to burn.”

While many now understand the ecology of our collection of national protected lands to be vital for our survival, there are a lot of people who are determined to stick with old knowledge. They deny the depths to which our public lands are intricately connected to one another and to the communities surrounding them. They laugh off existential warnings as extremist hyperbole.

For those who make a living (or a fortune) by clearing forested land, any voice that challenges their right to do so is a threat. They long for an old way of life and the thinking that went with it, because then, what they did to the land was acceptable. Any new environmental, ecological, or otherwise forward thinking is a threat.

Sit with this…

This weekend, I recommend watching a 2006 documentary that explores these tensions. Clear Cut: The story of Philomath, Oregon (link below) showcases residents of a small town that has long been embedded in the timber industry. It highlights how variance in the acceptance and rejection of a changing environment creates divisions in communities. It also shows how those with money and power in the community, view their role in shaping it.

In only the words of community members, you hear what each person feels is a right, an attack, and an obligation. To me, the story of Philomath is a microcosm of what is going on now. I watched it this week and it was such a good reminder that what we are going through has been building for ages.

The fight for the future is always going to be against the fight for what once was, and it is always going to be messy.

But it is also necessary.

And we can do it.

With love and hope for the future,

Stephanie

The ideological footholds highlighted in this documentary presented in this film seem all too relevant today.

What do you do in a small town with one industry in control?

How do we challenge the parts of traditions that are harmful and keep the community that was built around tradition?

If you watched the film, what stood out to you?

Buy or rent the film here:

For more reading:

Michael Boren: entitled development community activists

Tom Schultz: divestment and states rights in national forests