Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Study would shed needed light on best forest uses

Fri., Feb. 6, 2015

The federal government owns a little more than one-quarter of all lands in the state of Washington. Resentful legislators want title transferred to Olympia by the end of the year.

That is not going to happen, and enacting state legislation – House Bill 1192 – extinguishing federal title to those lands is a waste of time.

But another bill that has the same objective could be constructive, even if it never leads to state possession of ground now in federal hands.

House Bill 1262 authorizes a legislative task force that would study federal and state land management practices, and the benefits and costs to local governments in areas containing federal land.

No transfer of lands into private hands could be considered.

A side-by-side comparison would underscore the differences between returns on state forestlands versus federal lands, and the constant threat to local government budgets posed by mismanagement, or bungling, in Washington, D.C.

For example, because Congress did not reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program during last year’s lame-duck session, Washington counties will get $2 million this year in SRS funds instead of the $22 million they received last year.

Jon Wyss, president of the Okanogan County Farm Bureau, told the House Capital Budget Committee that over a 30-year period state timber harvests have been 30 times the volume taken off U.S. Forest Service lands, which are four times as large. Per acre, the state earns $77, the Forest Service 6 cents.

The state proceeds go to the school trust fund, which might carry substantially more of the burden of paying for education if the Department of State Lands was managing federal forestland instead of the Forest Service.

But the comparison on harvest and revenue is unfair to the federal agency and officials as dedicated to their work as their state counterparts.

The federal lands are managed for multiple uses, and the user constituencies contesting for cutting versus conservation, more wilderness designation versus off-road motorcycling, keep rangers in no-win situations. And the constant turnover in rangers takes them out of one federal forest into another just as they come to understand the landscape, people and issues.

The task force called for in HB 1262 would review the differing missions and operations, and “investigate options and pursue a transfer of ownership.” The task force would grow if the state’s tribes decided to participate, which they should.

Although we highly doubt any such transfer will occur, the results of the study could inform all managers, legislators and local government officials at every level and, not least, the many Washington residents who pay little attention to the woods unless they’re on fire.