We need to stop framing this as timber communities vs. spotted owls.

The real tradeoff is b/w private interests (the right to make $$$ on federal lands) vs. public interests (the right to clean water, clean air, a livable climate, access to outdoor recreation, etc.) A thread. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1349551891856977922

It's a mistake to make this about spotted owls for a few reasons. For one, they might be endangered even if federal lands remain protected (see: invasive barred owl, logging/development on private land).

But also, saving forests isn't just (or even mainly) about saving owls.

The biggest benefits of keeping forests in tact in Oregon include:

1. A canopy that provides shade for creeks and streams and keeps water cold enough to support salmon, which is important for public AND commercial interests

2. Carbon sequestration that slows climate change.

3. The hiking, camping, and other recreation opps that public forests create in Oregon, and the tourism that comes with it.

4. The natural air & water filtration that trees perform, and the health benefits and cost savings that come with it.

And the list goes on.

The Q is: Are we willing to trade away all those benefits in order to enrich companies that have (a) killed jobs by shipping logs to foreign mills, (b) poisoned their neighbors by spraying toxic herbicides, and (c) made billions by externalizing costs and lobbying for tax cuts?

This NYT article (like most media coverage) doesn't lay out these stakes accurately and implicitly frames the story as a conflict between timber industry (save jobs!) and environmental activists (save owls!)

But that's not reality, and anyone who does their homework knows it.

So h/t to @propublica, @Oregonian, and @OPB for beginning to disrupt this narrative with their collaborative reporting project on the Oregon forest economy. https://features.propublica.org/oregon-timber/severance-tax-cut-wall-street-private-logging-companies/

I still have complaints about the project so far and the way it's missing some key pieces of the puzzle.

But at least it's beginning to acknowledge the harm that these timber REITs have done to the so-called "timber communities" that they used to sustain.