The repetitive disinformation dolled out by Big Timber marketing and industry-funded “research” cannot undermine the ecological reality of our forested ecosystem. We do not have to abide by the false choice of clearcut logging versus ecological forestry, nor perpetuate the false choice of aggressive industrial logging versus funding schools and essential county services. The scientific community has shown that there are ways to manage forests ecologically both for timber harvest and for ecological integrity.

​

The logging pressure on Washington’s remaining legacy forests is rooted in the state’s foundational revenue structure. Under the 1889 Enabling Act, Washington received roughly three million acres of state trust lands to generate revenue for beneficiaries such as K–12 school construction, counties, and state universities.

 

For over a century, this system has tied essential public services—and entire local timber economies—to timber-derived income, creating a structural dependence that functions like a false choice between funding public services and conserving ecologically irreplaceable, carbon-dense forests. This outdated model has held rural communities and the timber industry alike in a kind of economic captivity.

​

Commissioner Upthegrove’s order to protect 77,000 acres of legacy forests helps take us one step closer to breaking free from this prison of false choices, and aligns with emerging legal and legislative clarity.

 

In 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Conservation NW et al. v. Franz that DNR’s mandate includes benefiting both trust beneficiaries and the public: Washington’s forests can be managed for multiple benefits, not solely for maximizing timber revenue. This ruling affirmed DNR’s broad discretion under Article XVI, Section 1 to serve “all the people,” and Commissioner Upthegrove’s order is the first major action putting this precedent into practice.

 

Legislatively, Washington’s Legislature has allocated roughly $120 million through the Climate Commitment Act over the past three years to acquire replacement forestlands so carbon-rich legacy forests can be conserved for their climate, ecological, and public-health benefits. There is room to find win-win solutions, and this moment marks a shift toward a bigger vision—one where we rethink forestry and create new, more resilient ways for rural communities to thrive.

​

But the funding system still needs to change. Some rural communities, local timber economies, and DNR itself remain heavily dependent on revenue generated through industrial clear-cut practices.

 

CRF will continue working with DNR and state lawmakers to develop alternative funding sources and expand ecological forest management across the state so that both trust beneficiaries and the broader public—and Washington’s last legacy forests—can benefit.