S. 1462, the “Fix Our Forests Act,” passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Conservation organizations from across the nation have voiced strong concerns with the content of the bill and have opposed its passage. The bill now heads to a full Senate vote.

Oregon Wild Wilderness Program Manager Erik Fernandez released the following statement:

“Today, the US Senate advanced its latest attack on public lands, the so-called “Fix Our Forests Act” (FOFA). This bill is a direct assault on what makes public lands public: it stymies science-based forest management, muzzles community input, and endangers the fish, wildlife, and communities that rely on our forests. It also fails to provide dedicated funding for the types of wildfire strategies that save lives and livelihoods — home hardening, defensible space, and emergency planning.

The legislation authorizes 15 square-mile-sized logging projects with little to no public input and environmental analysis, making this one of the scariest plans to face public lands in a generation.

Trump and his logging industry backers have made no secret of the fact that they see public land forests as tree farms, and view any science, transparency, and accountability from the public as an obstacle to profit. FOFA is nothing less than a corporate handout and a further step towards that dystopian vision. It is a betrayal of the very idea of public lands.

Over the past several months, we have seen an incredible movement develop, first to oppose public lands sales proposed by Senator Mike Lee of Utah, then as an unprecedented outpouring of support for the Roadless Rule that protects some of our nation’s last wild places from reckless logging and development. Over 99% of those public comments opposed the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind these public lands protections.

Unfortunately, too many politicians in Washington DC, including Senate Democrats like Amy Klobuchar, still don’t get it. 

Public lands may be managed by agencies like the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service, but they belong to all of us. They’re held in trust for the American people, not for industry lobbyists or corporate logging interests. As caretakers of these lands and as believers in the democratic vision they represent, we will continue to remind our elected officials that these places are ours, and that efforts to privatize, profit, and remove public oversight will not be forgotten.”

The post Anti-Public Lands Forest Bill Passes Senate Committee appeared first on Oregon Wild.

Oregon Wild has been doing our best to keep track of the many attacks the Trump administration and anti-conservation Members of Congress have launched against America’s public lands, clean water, and wildlife. Below is a partial list of what we are keeping tabs on. Amid all the bad news and threats, there is also some good news, and some early signs that grassroots activism is working.

The Good: 

Stopping the Sell-off of America’s Public Lands: Earlier this summer, Representatives Mark Amodei (R-NV) and Celeste Maloy (R-UT) tried to insert language in Trump’s Big, Ugly Tax and Spending bill that would have sold off 500,000 acres of America’s public lands in Utah and Nevada. A ferocious public backlash (including from Oregon, where Rep. Bentz ultimately came out against public lands sales) forced the House to withdraw it. Then, in June, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) went even further with an awful proposal that would have mandated the sale of up to 3 million acres of public land (and paved the way for millions more to be privatized in the future).  The backlash against Sen. Lee’s ploy was even stronger, and it was ultimately pulled.

While Trump’s bill ultimately passed the Senate (with plenty of awful anti-conservation and anti-environmental provisions in it), the backlash against public lands privatization is proof that even in this day and age, grassroots pressure works.

The Bad: 

The Fell (Fix) Our Forests Act: The Fix Our Forests Act is a logging bill trying to pass itself off as a wildfire strategy, and unfortunately democratic Senators like Hickenlooper and Padillia are drinking the Kool-Aid and handing the keys of our national forests over to the Trump administration. The bill will make it easier to avoid environmental laws like The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) — the bill uses emergency authorities to allow NEPA consultation after a project has been completed. It will allow even bigger loopholes through the expansion of Categorical Exclusions — 10,000 acres or 15 square miles — basically removing all public oversight of projects on federal forest land. And it will help to advance the narrative that commercial logging (and grazing) will protect communities from wildfire. The science is clear — we should be investing in proven community protection measures like defensible space, home hardening, and emergency planning. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide meaningful funding for these proven strategies. 

Trump’s Big, Ugly Tax and Spending Bill: The Senate stripped out provisions to sell off public lands from its budget reconciliation proposal. However, there are some truly awful logging provisions in the version that passed the Senate, including: 

1. 250 Million Mandate: Increases timber production by a minimum of 250,000,000 board feet over previous years’ sale volume for the Forest Service and 20,000,000 million for Bureau of Land Management. This arbitrary increase in logging will occur regardless of the impacts it could cause, be it worsening wildfires due to clearcutting or reducing our federal forests climate and clean water benefits.
2. 20-Year Logging Contracts: This bill calls for ramping up logging across federal forests, by mandating that the Forest Service enter into at least one long-term timber contract per year for 10 years in each region.  A similar provision applies to the Bureau of Land Management. This might force harmful logging to occur that has negative impacts on drinking water, vulnerable wildlife, and mature and old-growth forests.

Trump’s Wildfire Executive Order: Trump signed an executive order aimed to combine major wildland firefighting programs across federal public lands agencies within 90 days, in an effort to streamline how the federal government approaches fires. He issued this order during the height of wildfire season after gutting the federal firefighting workforce. The administration’s poorly thought-out and reckless actions will place wildland firefighters at increased risk and will make communities and infrastructure more vulnerable to catastrophic fires. 

The Ugly:

Recission of the Roadless Rule: The proposed rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule jeopardizes nearly 58 million acres of backcountry forestland managed by the U.S. Forest Service, comprising around a third of the territory in our national forest system. In Oregon, the rule protects nearly 2 million acres of Oregon’s forests from destructive logging and development. These include beloved places like the Metolius River, Lost Lake, the Oregon Dunes, Mount Hebo, Hardesty Mountain, Tumalo Mountain, and the Upper Hood River Valley. Take action to protect wild Roadless Areas.

NEPA rollbacks: US Department of Agriculture, which houses the Forest Service, and Department of the Interior, which includes the Bureau of Land Management, have announced their intent to gut NEPA as it applies to national forests and BLM lands. There will be a 30 day public comment period for the Forest Service’s interim rule that is expected to close July 30th. 

Trump’s logging Executive Orders (+ subsequent logging directives from his administration): President Trump issued two executive orders (EOs) to dramatically expand logging across federal public forests and increase timber output by 25%. Under the pretense of enhancing national security, these policies seek to weaken environmental protections to supercharge timber harvest and benefit wealthy corporate interests.

Changing the Definition of “Harm” to Endangered Species: For decades, America’s Endangered Species Act has defined “harm” to imperiled fish and wildlife to include the destruction of their habitat, such as building a dam with no fish passage and block salmon from accessing the habitat they need to spawn and reproduce.  In April, the Trump administration proposed changing this rule to remove habitat destruction from the definition of “harm” to an endangered species.  It is an incredibly cynical (and stupid) idea, and one that Oregon Wild is gearing up to challenge in court.

The post The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – The War Against Public Lands appeared first on Oregon Wild.

Portland, OR — Conservation groups intervened today in a lawsuit brought by the timber industry and counties seeking to strip northern spotted owls of protections for their critical habitat across millions of acres of forests in California, Oregon and Washington. 

The industry lawsuit attempts to reinstate a critical habitat rollback issued in the final weeks of the first Trump administration that removed nearly 3.5 million acres from the 9.6 million acres that were protected for spotted owls in 2012. 

“The logging industry wants to frame this lawsuit as just about the northern spotted owl, but what’s really at stake are our oldest, most resilient forests, forests that also provide cold, clean rivers for salmon, drinking water for communities and cherished places for countless people,” said John Persell, staff attorney for Oregon Wild. “Trump administration officials have made it clear they view these lands as little more than a source of profit. It’s up to all of us to stand up — for owls, salmon, clean water and carbon-storing forests — and say no.”

The northern spotted owl first gained critical habitat protection in 1992, and those were adjusted in 2012 under the Obama administration. That rule was challenged in court by the timber industry, resulting in a settlement and a January 2021 designation excluding 3.5 million acres from critical habitat protection, nearly all on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

Just 10 months later, the Biden administration rescinded the final designation and instead finalized a proposed rule that excluded 204,294 acres instead of 3.5 million acres. That Biden administration rule is being challenged by the timber industry’s current lawsuit, which is seeking to reinstate the expanded Trump administration revision.  

“The forests these precious owls depend on also provide all of us with benefits like clean water, recreation, jobs and climate resiliency,” said Chelsea Stewart-Fusek, an endangered species attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Given Trump’s relentless assaults on our most cherished wildlife and public lands, it’s no surprise that corporate timber interests are resurrecting their attacks on northern spotted owls and the places they live in the name of short-term profit.” 

“This latest attempt by the timber industry to remove protections for northern spotted owls is a cynical move that perpetuates not only the biodiversity and extinction crises, but also the pendulum swing regarding management of the owl’s habitat,” said Susan Jane Brown, attorney with Silvix Resources that represents some of the intervenors. “Rather than accept that the best available science requires the protection of millions of acres of spotted owl habitat to prevent the extinction and foster the recovery of the owl, industry’s lawsuit seeks to unnecessarily stoke controversy.”

“This is a tired story: the timber industry attempting to game the legal system in order to expand logging on our public lands,” said Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center. “Unfortunately for them, they have to come through us first. We have stood up for the northern spotted owls and science for decades and we aren’t backing down.”

“The lawyers for Big Timber are cherry-picking a courthouse across the country to attack old-growth spotted owl habitat in our neck of the woods,” said George Sexton, conservation director for Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center. “So we’re intervening to stand up for science and our forests.”

“With northern spotted owl population numbers in precipitous decline, the timber industry seeks to remove protections from a full third — 3.5 million acres — of the species’ critical habitat,” said David Woodsmall, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “This is a choice by the industry to drive the northern spotted owl to extinction for private profit, antithetical to the American values of conservation embodied in our laws. Western Environmental Law Center has fought for northern spotted owl recovery for decades, and we will use the power of the law to thwart any action that threatens the survival of this iconic species.”

“Drastically reducing spotted owl habitat protections is not only antithetical to the best science we have for allowing the imperiled species to recover, but puts at risk all the other benefits that protecting these public lands provide to Oregonians, the very people that these lands are supposed to be managed for,” says Nick Cady with Cascadia Wildlands. “Aggressive logging increases wildfire risk, threatens drinking water sources, recreation opportunities, and much more all for the benefit of corporate timber barons.”

“With less than 3,000 spotted owls left and a population that is declining precipitously, this challenge is a slap in the face to conservation and the survival of this species. Any reduction in acreage of critical habitat could be this species’ death knell,” said Joe Liebezeit, statewide conservation director for Bird Alliance of Oregon.

“Everything needs a home to survive,” said Dave Werntz, science and conservation director at Conservation Northwest. “The northern spotted owl is no exception.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protected the northern spotted owl, a bird found only in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1990. In 2020, because of continued loss of the old forests they need to live and competition with the invasive barred owl, the Service found northern spotted owls should now be classified as endangered but has yet to provide stronger protections for the species.

###

The post Legal Intervention Defends Northern Spotted Owl Habitat appeared first on Oregon Wild.

This aerial image shows two adjacent forest stands within the Little Lava Fire burn area, in the Deschutes National Forest, just SE of Mount Bachelor. Single-selection thinning was done in both stands in 1978. This is when just a few individual trees within the stand are removed. The stand on the left side of the road was then commercially logged in 2019, which, as you can see in the photos, significantly reduced stand density and opened up the forest canopy. The stand on the right was undisturbed over the last 40 years.

When the Little Lava Fire burned through here last fall, much of the forest that was logged in 2019 resulted in high tree mortality. On the other side, the fire only burned and killed a few trees on the perimeter of the stand, but most are still green and alive.

Aggressive logging often makes fire risk worse

All too often, aggressive logging projects remove the large, mature trees that are the most fire resilient and leave behind smaller, younger trees that are more flammable. These projects also open the forest canopy, allowing more sun to reach and dry out the forest floor. Add in hotter, drier summers caused by climate change, and all of this can add up to increased fire risk and more flammable forests.

On the other hand, mature and old-growth forests across Oregon have unique adaptations to survive–and thrive–in fire-prone landscapes. Fire is natural and necessary for the health of these forests and the wildlife that depend on them for habitat. Larger and older trees, especially species like Ponderosa pine that are prevalent across forests in Central Oregon, develop thick, fire-resistant bark and self-prune their lower branches as they age, making them more resistant and resilient to wildfire. These forests also have more canopy cover than logged forests, creating cooler and wetter conditions on the forest floor that can reduce the risk of intense fire. Take a look at the top photo again; in the unlogged stand on the right, you can still see patches of snow (this photo was taken in late-April 2025). On the left, the soil in the open stand dried out much faster due to increased sun and wind exposure.

Despite the timber industry’s claims that more “active management” and “fuels reduction” are needed to prevent catastrophic wildfires, the science shows that logging is not preventing large wildfires. In fact, logging can often make fire risk and severity much worse. One Oregon study found that corporate-owned tree plantations burned at 30% higher severity than adjacent older stands on public lands. 

This has become a common talking point for the timber industry, who claim that forests are overgrown (and, thus, more susceptible to high-severity fire) due to a lack of management and that management (aka logging) is our best tool against climate-driven wildfires. This simple claim is driving much of the current national forest policy and an increase in poorly designed logging projects that are spreading like wildfire across the country.

Last fall’s Little Lava Fire, in the Deschutes National Forest, allowed us an opportunity to visit a recent burn area and see how forests that were commercially logged fared in the fire compared to adjacent forests that have not been logged as aggressively, and still maintain mature forest characteristics.

Touring the Little Lava Fire

Much like the other severe wildfires that have erupted across the west in recent years, this fire was driven by climate change–namely, high winds and drought-like conditions. 

The fire started near Little Lava Lake, the headwaters of the Deschutes River, from lightning strikes in early September 2024. High winds and dry conditions allowed the fire to quickly spread east towards the town of Sunriver, burning through logged forest, unlogged forest, and even fields of lava rock that are common in the area. 

Oregon Wild staff visited the burn area in April 2025 and sent up our trusty drone to take aerial photos of the burned forest. After referencing the photos with historical logging data, we found that previously logged forests still burned at high-severity and did not stop the fire.  We also found that, in some cases, logged stands burned much hotter than adjacent, unlogged stands.

Parts of the forest burned extremely hot, killing nearly everything. The above photo shows stands that were aggressively logged in the 80s and 90s. The forest in the photo underwent a “shelterwood cut,” a term that describes a very aggressive form of logging. Imagine a clearcut, but with a few “seed trees” scattered throughout the stand that are left standing, and you have a shelterwood cut. Like a clearcut, most of the fire-resistant mature and old-growth trees are removed, and what we are seeing here is the consequences of a younger, drier, and more flammable forest.

When thinning can help

No, logging (or “active management,” “fuels reduction,” etc) does not prevent large fires and, as the Little Lava Fire demonstrates, it can (and often does) make these fires more destructive. However, there are certainly circumstances where some lighter-touch thinning makes sense and can create healthier and more resilient forests.

While the timber industry, land management agencies, and many politicians like to use logging as a one-size-fits-all blanket policy solution for all forests, the answer is not quite as clear-cut (see what I did there?) as they would like.

In reality, Oregon’s forests are incredibly diverse and have evolved differently with fire. In some places, natural low-intensity fires were common, and Indigenous peoples managed fires to promote the growth of certain foods and habitats. In other places, natural and Indigenous use of fire was rare. Decades of logging and fire suppression have left some dry forest types, like many in Central Oregon, unnaturally dense.

Restoration-based thinning and prescribed burning projects that focus on removing small trees and brush (that have grown in due to a lack of natural fires) near communities and seek to restore old-growth conditions can be beneficial in these dry forests. Efforts like the Glaze Meadow restoration project near the town of Sisters have reduced fire risks while improving habitat for fish and wildlife.

Current proposals to expand logging on public forests

Unfortunately, several concerning proposals are making their way through Congress and the Trump Administration that would increase and expand logging projects on public lands.

One of the largest is the so-called “Fix Our Forests Act.” Despite its name, this bill is merely a timber industry giveaway that would allow more logging on public lands and remove public oversight, scientific review, and environmental analysis of those logging projects. The bill passed the House of Representatives in January and is now in danger of being voted on by the Senate and sent to President Trump’s desk.

Earlier this spring, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order and secretarial memo focused on expanding industrial logging across 60% of our National Forests–including millions of acres of roadless areas, old-growth forests, wilderness-protected lands, and critical wildlife habitat.

These proposals have nothing to do with reducing wildfire risk, and everything to do with handing control of our national public lands over to private industries that stand to profit off them.

What can you do

Contact your Senators today and tell them to oppose the Fix Our Forests Act. Reach out to your members of Congress and let them know that more logging is NOT the answer.

Advocate for the solutions that do work and do protect communities:

• Funding and investment in home hardening, defensible space, and community preparedness (learn about how you can make your home safer from fire) 
• Cultural and prescribed burning in forests that have become unnaturally dense due to fire suppression 
• Redirect resources used to log backcountry forests to restoration-based burning and small-diameter tree thinning projects in areas near homes and communities.

To learn more about fire and forests in Oregon, check out our blog about the Ten Things Oregonians Should Know About Forest Fires.

The post Little Lava Fire in Central Oregon shows logging does not prevent wildfire spread appeared first on Oregon Wild.

Key findings include:

• 76% of Oregonians—including 61% of rural residents—oppose selling off public lands to finance tax cuts. This comes as House Republicans recently advanced a proposal to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Utah and Nevada. Oregon Representatives Maxine Dexter and Val Hoyle voted against the amendment in the House Natural Resources Committee, with Cliff Bentz voting for it.
  
  
• 74% believe the federal government should focus forest management on thinning small trees near homes and emergency services, rather than large-scale commercial logging. Both state and federal policy heavily subsidize logging lucrative large trees in the backcountry in the name of ‘fire preparedness’ over more effective ways to safeguard lives and communities.
  
  
• 72% support more protections for mature and old-growth forests. Over 1 million public comments were submitted nationally in favor of stronger safeguards during the Biden administration, but efforts have been stalled by U.S. Forest Service leadership.
  
  
• 67% opposed changing Endangered Species Act protections to remove habitat destruction from the definition of “harm” to wildlife. Right now, the law recognizes that “harm” includes not just directly killing or capturing wildlife—but also habitat destruction that makes it impossible for a species to feed, breed, or shelter.
  
  
• 67% oppose logging projects up to 10,000 acres in size without environmental review or public input—a controversial provision in the Fix Our Forests Act, which passed the U.S. House earlier this year and faces a Senate hearing soon.
  
  Senator Ron Wyden has notably commented that the Fix Our Forests Act  “…undermines bedrock environmental laws, and would allow poorly designed, large commercial projects that threaten community drinking water, wildlife and recreation opportunities to proceed with inadequate environmental review.”
  
  
• 65% oppose layoffs of public lands agency employees. The Trump administration has threatened additional “reduction in force” orders that put our public lands and communities at risk.

These views stand in stark contrast to the environmental policies promoted under President Trump and some Oregon lawmakers, including executive orders that placed logging above conservation.

“This poll affirms, once again, that Oregonians overwhelmingly favor policies that protect clean water, wildlife, and public lands for current and future generations—and reject partisan efforts to gut environmental safeguards,” said Oregon Wild spokesperson Arran Robertson.

The post Poll: Oregonians Oppose Trump’s Plans for Public Lands and the Environment appeared first on Oregon Wild.

Eugene, OR — Conservation groups secured a victory as a federal court rejected the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) controversial Siuslaw HLB (“Harvest Land Base”) Project. The court held the agency’s proposed multi-decadal and aggressive logging plan near several communities west of Eugene, violated critical environmental review requirements.

Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild, with attorneys at Crag Law Center, brought suit arguing that the agency ignored the project’s potential impacts on soils, drinking water, invasive weeds, and threatened wildlife. The organizations also raised concerns about the cumulative effects of the Siuslaw HLB Project and the overlapping N126 Project, another Bureau of Land Management logging proposal a different judge ruled unlawful in late March. Federal law requires the agency to weigh the negative effects of logging against any claimed benefits from timber production — a step the Bureau of Land Management neglected.

“The Bureau of Land Management routinely disregards the serious risks that many of their logging projects impose,” said Nick Cady with Cascadia Wildlands. “We lose valuable, rare ecosystems and with it, wildfire resilience and drinking water quality, every time these mature forests are irresponsibly logged.” 

The Court ruled in favor of the conservation groups, finding that the Bureau of Land Management did not take the legally required “hard look” at the environmental impacts. Further, in his Opinion, Judge Kasubhai concluded that “This is not a case where the Court was unable to determine whether there may be significant effects. Rather, the Court has explicitly found […] that substantial questions exist over whether the Siuslaw Plan may have significant impacts. Under the clear rule set forth in the case law cited above, an EIS [environmental impact statement] must be prepared in light of that finding.” Accordingly, BLM’s choice not to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of its decision and prepare an environmental impact statement violated federal law.

“The Judge offered a strong rebuke of the agency’s shell game analysis, wherein the BLM refused to analyze impacts to key issues like sensitive soils, imperiled species, and invasive species, claiming that such impacts were either already addressed or would be in the future. But in truth, the agency’s approach meant that these critical issues would never be addressed in the manner that the law requires,” said Oliver Stiefel, Senior Staff Attorney, Crag Law Center.

The Siuslaw HLB Project sought to log 13,225 acres of public forests in the Coast Range foothills. The Bureau of Land Management’s own planning documents acknowledged that the project would increase the spread of invasive weeds, decrease slope stability and destroy soil health, and risked serious harm to numerous protected species (special status, bureau sensitive, or endangered), decrease fire resilience, and contaminate and degrade drinking water contamination. Notwithstanding, the agency dismissed these risks as insignificant.

“Whether it’s due to poor analysis or attempts to log old-growth trees for profit, the courts continue to reject the BLM’s unlawful logging projects,” said John Persell of Oregon Wild. “Clearcutting public lands, destroying wildlife habitat, endangering local communities — this is exactly the type of logging President Trump and his allies are now pushing on a larger scale. It’s not legal, it’s not what the public wants, and we’re going to keep fighting it.” 

Local residents have also voiced strong opposition, citing risks such as drinking water contamination, increased wildfire hazards, soil erosion, invasive species introduction, and the destruction of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. The agency was unfazed by these concerns. It is encouraging to see federal courts in Oregon recognizing the problems associated with poor environmental analysis and serious risks those shortfalls pose to our forests.

The organizations are represented by attorneys from the Crag Law Center and Cascadia Wildlands.

###

Eugene-based Cascadia Wildlands defends and restores Cascadia’s wild ecosystems in the forests, in the courts, and in the streets. The organization envisions vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and vibrant communities sustained by the unique landscapes of the Cascadia bioregion.

Oregon Wild’s mission is to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife, and water as an enduring legacy. Oregon Wild is celebrating its 50th Anniversary this year.

Crag Law Center is a nonprofit environmental law center based in Portland, Oregon that  supports community efforts to protect and sustain the Pacific Northwest’s natural legacy. Implementing a unique model of legal aid for the environment, Crag balances the scales of justice by offering free and low-cost legal services to people who are working on the ground to protect our environment, climate and communities.

The post Court Rejects Coast Range Clearcutting Project appeared first on Oregon Wild.

WASHINGTON, DC— Today, Senators John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) introduced the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA). In a giveaway to the timber industry, the bill – which is presented as a measure against wildfire – could open the door to unlimited logging across millions of acres of national forests, undermining bedrock environmental and public health laws. House Natural Resources Committee Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) introduced companion legislation that passed the House in January 2025. 

The Senate version of FOFA arrived less than a week after President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, issued a memo that begins implementation of President Trump’s March 1 executive order to ramp up logging across over half of national forests. FOFA and Trump’s logging directives would both erode environmental laws and make it harder for members of the public to weigh in on government decisions, all of which could devastate forest health.

If passed, FOFA would allow logging on federal lands without scientific review and community input. The bill truncates ESA consultation requirements to protect threatened and endangered species and limits the right of citizens to judicial review, effectively barring communities from bringing lawsuits to hold federal agencies accountable.  

Both FOFA and the Trump administration’s recent actions call for changes in forest management that could ultimately worsen the risk of fire. The executive order seeks to increase timber targets, which would focus limited Forest Service staff on meeting commercial timber amounts rather than taking appropriate measures to reduce wildfire risk. These directives would also facilitate the removal of large old-growth trees that are naturally more fire-resilient. More logging will exacerbate the underlying causes of severe wildfire blazes – namely, dry forest conditions, caused by rising temperatures and a lack of precipitation due to climate change. 

The following is a statement from Earthjustice, Oregon Wild, Standing Trees, and the Center for Biological Diversity, groups in the Climate Forests Coalition.

“Whether we are talking about the Fix Our Forests Act or President Trump’s executive order on forests, we are talking about an attack on our national public lands. This Senate bill could open the door to unlimited logging of forests owned and cherished by all Americans. Cutting down our old-growth and mature trees will ultimately worsen climate change. Rather than handing the keys to the Trump administration to unleash a logging bonanza, Senators should propose an alternative bill focused on supporting sensible wildfire mitigation strategies such as home hardening, local emergency planning, and defensible space.”

Oregon Wild’s mission is to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife, and water as an enduring legacy. Oregon Wild is celebrating its 50th Anniversary this year.

The post Dem Senators Introduce Logging Bill That Would Hand Over Keys to National Forests to Trump Administration appeared first on Oregon Wild.

In response to a secretarial memo focused on expanded logging, Oregon Wild Conservation Director Steve Pedery issued the following statement, calling out the administration’s attempt to exploit public fear and override environmental safeguards for the benefit of the logging industry:

“This memo isn’t about protecting forests. It is about logging and looting 60% of America’s National Forest Lands, 112,646,000 acres, by declaring a fake emergency to justify weakening protections for our clean water, wildlife, and wildlands. When the Secretary of Agriculture says the primary goal is to ‘protect timber resources,’ it pulls the mask off this manufactured emergency.

This order would gut the ability of the American public to ensure that their clean drinking water and local forests are protected from poor logging practices These safeguards ensure that science, transparency, and community voices are part of the decision-making process. Gutting them only serves corporate logging interests.

The map shared by the Secretary is both vague and misleading. It includes areas that are off-limits to commercial logging and temperate rainforest areas where claims of high fire risk or other justifications are dubious at best. The chaotic and haphazard nature of the Secretarial Order’s release raises serious concerns about how these maps were produced, and who is really making decisions about Trump forest policy.

If this administration were serious about wildfire, it would invest in protecting homes and communities through programs to help homeowners with home hardening, defensible space, and emergency planning— not industrial logging in remote forests that destroys wildlife habitat and makes fire risks worse. The science is clear, and so is the motive behind this memo. Anyone who cares about clean water, wildlife, and public lands should join us in opposing this reckless scheme to loot our National Forests.”

Analysis

Impacts to Oregon in the President’s Executive Order and subsequent secretarial memo.

• Over 11.2 million acres in Oregon are impacted
• 64% of national forests in Oregon are impacted 
• Over 1 million acres of wilderness in Oregon are impacted 
• 47% – fraction of wilderness areas in Oregon impacted
• Over 1.5 million acres of roadless areas in Oregon are impacted 
• 76% – fraction of Oregon roadless areas impacted
• Over 1.6 million acres in Oregon of critical habitat impacted 
• Over 30% – fraction of Oregon critical habitat impacted

See NRDC’s full analysis 

Oregon Wild’s mission is to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife, and water as an enduring legacy. Oregon Wild is celebrating its 50th Anniversary this year.

The post Oregon Wild Statement on USDA Secretarial Memo: Looting 60% of America’s National Forests for Corporate Profit appeared first on Oregon Wild.

MEDFORD, OR — Medford, Ore., – Yesterday, Federal District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) “Integrated Vegetation Management” (IVM) logging program illegally authorized the destruction of old-growth forest stands located within Late Successional Reserves. With this ruling, the court agreed that “gap creation” and “open seral” logging prescriptions within the Late Successional Reserves would have increased fire hazard while removing old-growth forest habitat.

Conservation groups from across Oregon challenged the IVM logging project with the goal of getting BLM forest managers to focus on fuels reduction and fire resiliency instead of logging old-growth forests to meet artificial timber targets.

“This ruling confirms that Late Successional Reserves are exactly what their name says,” said George Sexton, KS Wild Conservation Director. “These fire-resilient old-growth forest stands capture carbon while providing some of the best wildlife habitat left in southern Oregon.”

The first commercial IVM timber sales called Penn Butte and Late Mungers were located in the Williams Late Successional Reserve and would have removed over 400-acres of old-growth habitat through “open seral” logging and another 51 acres through “gap creation” clearcutting.

“Reckless timber sales like this are exactly why we need strong public oversight,” said John Persell, Staff Attorney for Oregon Wild. “Trump’s executive order to ramp up logging pushes for more destructive projects to benefit the timber industry, but the forests at Penn Butte and Late Mungers should be protected as key habitat and for carbon storage, not sacrificed for corporate profit.”

A primary problem with BLM’s IVM timber scheme was that timber planners hoped to avoid site-specific analysis and public input while removing old-growth forest habitat from Late Successional Reserves and increasing fire hazard in logged forest stands.

“If the BLM is interested in real fire-focused restoration, we would be fully supportive,” said stated Cascadia Wildlands Legal Director Nick Cady, “but that is not what the IVM logging program is. Aggressively logging wildlife habitat in the Late Successional Reserves that will increase fire hazard for the surrounding community is ridiculous. It demonstrates that this agency does not care what this community has been through and is only concerned with producing timber volume.” 

The successful legal challenge was argued by Meriel Darzen of the Crag Law Center on behalf of KS Wild, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, and the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council. In the shadow of the Trump Administration’s anti-environmental Executive Orders, Crag remains committed to the rule of law.

###

Eugene-based Cascadia Wildlands defends and restores Cascadia’s wild ecosystems in the forests, in the courts, and in the streets. The organization envisions vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and vibrant communities sustained by the unique landscapes of the Cascadia bioregion.

Oregon Wild’s mission is to protect and restore Oregon’s wildlands, wildlife, and water as an enduring legacy. Oregon Wild is celebrating its 50th Anniversary this year.

KS Wild‘s mission is to protect and restore wild nature in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of southwest Oregon and northwest California.

Through a unique model of “legal aid for the environment,” Crag Law Center provides free and low-cost legal services to people and organizations who are working on the ground to protect our environment, climate and communities.

The post Court Strikes Down Illegal BLM Logging in Protected Old-Growth Reserves appeared first on Oregon Wild.

Removing Environmental Protections to Expand Logging

This executive order directs federal agencies to identify pathways to aggressively weaken key environmental protections, including those established by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. These laws exist to ensure public involvement and science-based decision-making and to prevent reckless exploitation of public lands, but under this directive, agencies must now take the following actions:

• Within 30 days: Issue new guidelines to accelerate logging under various contracting authorities and propose legislative changes to further expand logging operations.
• Within 60 days: Develop a strategy to rush through endangered species reviews for logging projects, slashing oversight that protects at-risk wildlife.
• Within 90 days: Propose aggressive new logging targets for federal lands for the next four years, measured in millions of board feet of timber.
• Within 120 days: Finalize a broad review of whitebark pine forests under the Endangered Species Act, setting the stage to undermine protections for this imperiled species.
• Within 180 days: Consider adopting blanket exemptions that would allow logging projects to bypass environmental review entirely under the National Environmental Policy Act.
• Within 280 days: Review and reinstate past exemptions for thinning and salvage logging, further cutting back environmental oversight.

Gutting Environmental Safeguards

In addition to attempting to bypass statutes passed by Congress, this executive order attacks existing environmental protections head-on. It instructs federal agencies to eliminate any policy—whether a regulation, legal settlement, or guideline—that creates an undefined “undue burden” on timber production. This vague and dangerous language provides a blank check for industry to push for the elimination of any rule standing in the way of profit-driven deforestation.

Of particular concern is the expansion of Categorical Exclusions demanded in this order. These loopholes allow federal agencies to bypass environmental review and other public processes. Some have no size limit, meaning agencies would have the discretion to log vast landscapes while declaring the project has no impact. Oregon Wild and our allies are currently challenging such exemptions in court.

Oregon Wild and our allies have also won a string of victories against reckless Bureau of Land Management logging projects that target old-growth forests, degrade drinking water and endangered salmon habitat, and increase fire risks to nearby communities. This executive order appears designed to push logging projects like those found illegal by the courts through new loopholes.

An Anti-Law Order

The executive order seeks to set the stage to expand logging through legally dubious—if not outright illegal—means. Executive orders can not override federal statutes, but this directive is focused on identifying ways to circumvent the Endangered Species Act and NEPA to expedite logging. 

A few examples of legally dubious assertions in the order:

• Revisiting legal settlements already approved by the courts represents yet another attack on the judicial branch’s ability to check executive overreach. Its inclusion in this order is part of Trump’s broader assault on the separation of powers.
  
• There is no provision in the Endangered Species Act that allows its use to “improve the speed of approving forestry projects” or to maintain the Endangered Species Committee (also known as the “God Squad”) as a standing body with the sole purpose of fast-tracking timber production.
  
• The order’s direction to force emergency consultations to rubber-stamp logging projects under a fabricated “national security emergency” is a lawless interpretation of the ESA.

Weakening Protections for Endangered Species

Trump’s executive order directs agencies to exploit ESA emergency provisions and the Endangered Species Committee to fast-track timber harvests and identify endangered species that “stand in the way” of logging. This committee is sometimes referred to as the “God Squad” because of its ability to essentially give permission to activities that will drive a species to extinction.

The committee has rarely met since its creation in 1978 and has only ever removed protections for endangered species three times, including the northern spotted owl in 1992.

While legally dubious, the administration is setting up a scenario where it could declare that endangered species like Coho salmon, northern spotted owls, and marbled murrelets will lose protections and be driven toward extinction in pursuit of logging profits.

A Manufactured National Security Crisis to Justify Logging

In a blatant attempt to justify this giveaway to the timber industry, the Trump administration issued a second Executive Order framing timber production as a national security issue. This order claims that reliance on foreign lumber threatens U.S. industries and insists that a stable domestic timber supply is essential for both defense and civilian needs.

To reinforce this false narrative, the Secretary of Commerce has been ordered to investigate the supposed national security impact of timber imports. This investigation will assess:

• Whether domestic logging operations can meet U.S. demand.
• How foreign trade practices affect the American timber industry.

While this national security order hints at trade measures, the real objective is clear: manufacturing a crisis to justify stripping environmental safeguards and maximizing corporate profits.

A Coordinated Attack on Public Lands and Science

This executive order is part of a broader campaign to undermine public lands and environmental science. From slashing the ranks of park rangers and wildlife biologists to purging career scientists from public land agencies, the Trump administration has systematically dismantled the expertise and oversight needed to protect America’s natural heritage.

By firing the very people responsible for safeguarding public lands and then removing the laws that protect them, this administration is making it easier than ever for corporate interests to exploit forests without accountability.

What This Means for Forests and Wildlife

This executive order marks a dangerous turning point in federal forest policy that requires multiple uses are balanced on public lands—one that prioritizes logging over conservation, climate resilience, and biodiversity. By rolling back environmental safeguards and pushing for increased timber extraction under a false national security pretense, the administration is setting a reckless precedent that could cause irreversible harm.

Our public forests are more than just a resource for timber corporations. They store carbon, protect watersheds, and provide critical habitat for countless species. They are the places we go to enjoy nature and spend time with our families. Weakening protections in favor of short-term economic gain will have lasting consequences for ecosystems, communities, and future generations.

This is not just about logging. It is about whether America’s public lands remain protected for the benefit of all—or become just another asset to be looted by powerful industries. As the Trump administration moves to implement this order, it is crucial to stay informed, speak out, and fight back against these dangerous rollbacks.

Photo by Eric DeBord

The post ANALYSIS: Trump Executive Order Puts Logging Above All Else appeared first on Oregon Wild.