Our view: Lawsuit is a failure on both sides

Published 5:00 am Tuesday, June 21, 2022

A recent move by a coalition of conservation groups to file a lawsuit to topple a decision made by the Trump administration that negated a rule that banned logging of large trees on national forests east of the Cascades is ultimately a sad reminder that little progress has been made regarding nonlegal solutions to environmental challenges.

At the heart of the issue is what is known as the 21-inch rule — an edict that restricted logging of live trees larger than 21 inches in diameter measured 4½ feet off the ground — that dates back to the mid-1990s.

The rule was created to address concerns from environmental groups about the safety and viability of old-growth timber in national forests across our region.

The environmental groups assert the Trump administration’s move to lift the ban violates federal law — specifically the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act — and officials should have crafted an environmental impact statement to review the impacts of a decision to lift the ban.

Proponents of lifting the ban contend abolishing the rule gives agencies such as the Forest Service more flexibility in its effort to manage forests to diminish wildfire risk.

Most Popular

The suit — filed in the U.S. District Court in Pendleton — is yet another example of failure for both the conservationists and the U.S. government.

Most — but not all — environmental lawsuits over flashpoint issues should never end up in a courtroom. That’s because both sides of any such issue not only carry the capacity to work these challenges out but also hold a responsibility to do so.

That responsibility isn’t to a long-held belief in a specific dogma or blind obedience to a new edict delivered in the waning days of an administration.

No, the responsibility should be to those who live and work and play in areas such as Eastern Oregon. The voters of our region deserve better than yet another long legal battle that consumes time and money.

Opposing sides of any issue can sit down and work out a compromise. There is no better example of such a circumstance than the effort spearheaded by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden regarding the Owyhee Canyonlands in Southeastern Oregon. There, for years, environmentalists, ranchers and others squared off on how best to preserve pristine canyonland. In the end, Wyden led the effort to work out a compromise between the two groups.

Was everyone satisfied? No. Did everyone get what they wanted? No. Yet that’s how democracy is supposed to work. Compromise and the goal of working toward a viable solution should be the focus, not going to court.

Marketplace