In terms of old growth protection now, we haven’t had enough political power to save it, in order to get legislation to draw circles around places and permanently protect them–in the same way the timber industry hasn’t had enough political power to cut it. That’s the kind of stand off like at Opal Creek for a number of years, even though it was supposedly released with the Oregon wilderness bill [of 19841. I remember we did a dedication for some of the additions to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness after the ’84 wilderness bill passed. Someone from the logging community asked the district ranger at that dedication, “Are you going ahead [with logging] in Opal Creek?” [He replied] “You bet we are, by God.” There’s been kind of a stand off in things, even if the agency didn’t administratively [save old growth] in their forest plans, which are for ten years anyway and then you have to argue it again. The Forest Service recognized that it would pay a political price if some areas which had gained [public] recognition were cut, part of it was threats of litigation. I don’t give the agency credit for doing it [saving old growth forest] for the right reasons, really. It was because of public pressure in various forms that some of the ancient forest groves that we sought to protect as wilderness, and are still not [permanently] protected today, were not cut down. Why they’re still around is, again, because of some public consciousness. The agency saying “We don’t do it that way anymore is the line I’ve heard dating back to the 1970s when I first got involved in the issues.
Were the wilderness dedications useful for launching this second phase aimed at saving old growth?
A little, maybe. It was a decision of James [Monteith] and Andy [Kerr] to do that. It was time to stop and recognize that this was a benchmark in the campaign and as a way of thanking the various people who were involved in the effort. We had eight or ten of those things scattered around the state. We did it over the course of a year. It was sort of interesting, the various discussions we had with the Forest Service. It is interesting to me [how] the agency opposed wilderness protection and anything that draws a line around [land] and says they cant t manage [cut] it. Once it’ s designated there is an acceptance, too, and it’s kind of like suddenly that’s our wilderness area. You talk to them and you’d think that they had been supportive of it [wilderness designation] back when they fought it tooth and claw.
