There now seems to be an acceptance of old growth’s biological value and an acknowledgment of its importance as sacred groves. Was there confusion at that time about why environmentalists wanted to save these forests?
We made a big issue of wilderness being a way to protect ancient forests and that not enough old growth was being protected as wilderness. Mark Hatfield and others were much more interested in rock and ice, as we termed it, than what would otherwise be commercial forest land. The [timber] industry incorrectly tried to maintain that once the wilderness bill had passed [in 19841, then we turned to old growth. In fact, we had talked about old growth and salmon in a lot of our early information as major wilderness values. The science on salmon, which indicated they were in trouble, has really been very recent. In other words, we didn’t really have the science and I think a lot of the fish biologists that have just now come forward had these concerns when the [Northern spotted] owl was the issue. People have said to us, “Why didn’t you use the salmon instead of the owl if you were going to pick a surrogate, so to speak?” In that context, the real answer is that the science wasn’t there for the salmon. We were concerned that streams were being logged and silted over, but most of the information at the time was logging increases the amount of water in the stream, so logging is good for the fish. This type of information was what they were pumping out of OSU and those kind of places in the late ’70s and early ’80s.
Was the lack of science one of the reasons why the Endangered American Wilderness Act [of 19781 was so limited in reference to Oregon, with only three areas designated?
I don’t really know the answer to that. I didn’t get involved with the broader statewide politics with ONRC until the early 1980s. The politics defined the areas such as French Pete, or maybe the vision wasn’t big enough. It was still an issue of how do you get it around Mark Hatfield and what will he accept. Like I was saying, the Umpqua Wilderness Defenders decided that they would push for 3 of the 19 roadless areas as wilderness on the Umpqua National Forest–Mount Thielson, Rogue-Umpqua Divide, and Boulder Creek. I remember working with a woman from the Oregon Wilderness Coalition who came down when I was pushing for that research natural area near Myrtle Creek. Her comment to me was “You know, you might just as well go for five million acres as five acres because they’ll vilify you just the same.” Whoever the voice is that challenges the dominant paradigm is going to be criticized and attacked because you’re trying to save five acres and what if this catches on? If it’s five acres, then it’s another five acres. I think people end up advocating for smaller areas because they support the places they know. They don’t have the time or the resources to take a comprehensive view.
