Follow Discovery on Twitter A New Look at Spotted Owls and Timber Dollars
By Eric Sorensen | Posted on March 17, 2010 | 6 Comments »
Categories: Agriculture, Sociology
The export economy of logging was already leaving the Olympic Peninsula when the spotted owl arrived. Adam Fagen photo courtesy of Flickr.
The dust has settled from the Pacific Northwest timber wars of the 1990s, but the perception still lingers that the endangered species listing of the spotted owl was a job killer.
Look again, says Annabel Kirschner, a professor in Washington State University’s Department of Community and Rural Sociology.
Writing in the latest Social Science Journal, Kirschner says the owl listing and subsequent logging reductions did not significantly increase unemployment and poverty on Washington State’s Olympic Peninsula.
Her analysis shows the peninsula was already hard hit by changes in the timber industry when harvest limits in spotted owl habitat began in the 1990s. More than timber limits, the industry restructuring continued to affect poverty in the ‘90s. Meanwhile, Native American and Latino populations were significant and often overlooked factors in the peninsula’s poverty and unemployment.
“During the spotted owl debate, almost no attention was paid to the presence of minorities on the peninsula,” Kirschner writes. “…This is a weakness of much poverty research in rural areas, and this finding emphasizes the importance of considering the presence of these populations in rural areas when considering well-being.”
The paper certainly paints a different picture of the controversy. Back in the early ‘90s, media coverage focused on loggers and businesses who posted signs saying they were “supported by timber dollars.” But in Kirschner’s analysis, the region is increasingly supported by service industries, increasing education levels, a near doubling of commuting opportunities, and retirement incomes. Meanwhile, those in the most dire straits are Native Americans or Latinos, whose population grew by more than 140 percent in the ‘90s.
Kirschner, A.R. Understanding poverty and unemployment on the Olympic Peninsula after the Spotted Owl. The Social Science Journal (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2009.11.002.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 17th, 2010 at 11:07 am and is filed under Agriculture, Sociology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Tags: demographics, diversity, forestry, logging, Olympic Peninsula, poverty, spotted owl, timber industry, unemployment, WSU
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Dear Mr. Sorensen and Professor Kirschner…
Re: WSU Article titled: “Spotted Owl Had Little Effect on Olympic Peninsula poverty, Unemployment, WSU Research Finds”
The article on the Olympic Peninsula’s forest industry and the contention that the spotted owl had little or naught to do with the area’s economic difficulties just flat amazes me. More in a minute, but first let me tell you my background:
I was born in 1945 and raised in Grays Harbor’s forest industry. I began work in the woods as soon as my mom would let me out of the house and I’ve been part of the industry ever since. Those jobs range from kid’s work: peeling cascara bark, picking cones and, later, planting trees, fighting fire, logging, surveying and forestry. I have a BS degree in Forest Management (1974), was Alaska State Forester and now work for an association that represents forest manufacturers. Damned few people know the industry better than I do, especially in western Washington and the Olympic Peninsula.
The study’s contention that the owl’s listing had little on rural communities is not borne out by the evidence. I watched my industry and rural communities struggle to cope with gut-wrenching change brought on by federal land use policy, ergo, the spotted owl and Northwest Forest Plan. Did the industry change during that time? Of course it did. Did it modernize? The survivors did. They had to. Were some of the plants going to go away regardless of the owl? Yes. Were some jobs going to be irrevocably lost? Yes. But that’s just part of the story.
Lawsuits, appeals, and controversy caused a revolutionary change in federal land use policy during the period 1988-1994, culminating with President Clinton’s Forest Plan (Northwest Forest Plan) in 1993. That plan formalized federal timber supply reductions of 80%, but in effect, dropped PNW federal timber harvest to almost zero for a period of several years. Only now, some fifteen years later, are we approaching harvest levels promised under the NW Forest Plan. Do you wonder why the industry changed? Take away 90% of WSU’s budget over the same period and watch what happens….
The forest industry lost on the order of 80,000 jobs in the early 1990’s. You can add another 160,000 or so family members affected. Most of that loss is due to owl and public land use policy memorialized by the NW Forest Plan, not just market forces as you apparently imply. The impact goes far beyond the spotted owl. The Clinton Administration changed federal land policy throughout the west with results similar to the owl areas. Those are just the numbers, which do not tell the impact on workers and their families that I’ve watched.
Ironically, US lumber demand continues to be set by the market place. Federal timber harvest and lumber production reductions are made up by other nations, especially Canada. In short, the US didn’t reduce its lumber use; we just get it from somewhere elsewhere. Our industry has changed to meet timber supply and market realities. We adapt or are replaced. It’s a stark, pretty simple economic model affirmed several times in my lifetime. I assure you there’s nothing fair or warm and fuzzy about it.
Finally, while I have not read the study, I am mystified as to what Hispanics have to do with federal land use policy. Hispanics fill many jobs in logging, manufacturing and forestry, many of them at the bottom of the pay scale. They are, however, hard workers and are climbing the job chain to become respected, skilled employees. They may be subject to the same social discrimination that dogged their predecessors from Ireland, Italy, etc., not too mention documentation issues but they are an integral, valued part of our workforce. To mix a public land use and ESA policy examination with a social science study, however, seems a wide stretch of topics. The results on the land management side seem to bear that out.
Bob Dick
Washington Manager
American Forest Resource Council
Fellow, Society of American Foresters
State Forester, Alaska, 1989-93
BSF, University of Washington, ‘74
April 8th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Looking at the article from Mr. Sorensen and Professor Kirschner perspective, you think of the effect that the timber industry has had on these owls and you wounder about the effect that money can have on the effect on such an amzing wonder that we call nature. Then looking at the heart felt response written by mr “Bob Dick” you then see the postive impact that the booming timber industry has had on the people. Now comparing that to an industry that has had to decline and what it has done not only to the workers but to the families.
All in all a great article.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
don’t let anything in this earth become extinct….
July 21st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
the effect that the timber industr is very scarry. please save our planet.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:49 am
In the case of the spotted owl, we must ask whether and to what extent preserving endangered species and the wilderness they inhabit should take precedence over other considerations, such as major economic dislocations.
April 5th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Mr. Dick presents an eloquent synopsis. However, I think he left some key points out. It is more complicated than logging good for economy, NW forest plan bad. I would not say the NW plan was perfect. Just that the issue is broader.
The owl was simply a tool to stop potentially damaging timber sales. It was not just the owl “environmentalists” were concerned about. The clearcut logging that was occurring on the OP ( and other places) was devastating to water quality. Consider the connection of the salmon industry to healthy coastal watersheds. Mucking up spawning habitat with erosion added to the gauntlet salmon have had to face, and impacted our fishing communities.
Also, I am puzzled by the statement: ” To mix a public land use and ESA policy examination with a social science study, however, seems a wide stretch of topics.” I would suggest that considering the effect of land use practices on rural communities is social science – and is very important – and Mr. Dick did just that in telling his own story.
The abiotic and biotic communities are not separate. Indeed we need to consider both to make sensible, sustainable land use policy.
As Aldo Leopold said…“Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.” “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”