Put a match to frivolous timber lawsuits

Print Article

Some people still donít understand that trees are a renewable resource.

They donít know ó†or refuse to believe clear scientific evidence ó†that†strategic timber harvests are actually good for long-term forest health, including wildlife.

You can find these people waving the banners of some of the most rabid environmental groups in America. Their desire to protect the planet is commendable. Their tactics, however, are sometimes misguided, verging on malicious.

As Sundayís front-page story by Steve Cameron pointed out, taxpayers foot the bill for millions of dollars in frivolous lawsuit expenses brought by just a few environmental groups. Itís not just taxpayers who suffer; a vital American industry is shackled by these lawsuits, depriving consumers of desirable products, the economy of one of its catalysts, and the forests of critically important management.

Going back decades, some environmental organizations have employed a playbook that effectively brings timber harvests to a screeching halt. The objective: Tie up potential harvests with lawsuits. That way, the environmentalists hope to outlast the viability of those harvests.

The madness might be nearing its end, however. Under the Trump Administration, many longstanding but questionable practices are being scrutinized. Itís the hope of this newspaperís editorial board that frivolous lawsuits become an endangered species.

The Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 would use arbitration to chop down frivolous lawsuits. Taking an idea first proposed by the Western Governors Association ó unlike many Washington bureaucrats, a group of state leaders with intimate understanding of forest issues ó the Resilient Federal Forests Act would emulate baseball arbitration.

Understanding that the legislation is likely to undergo changes, binding arbitration is an indispensable element. In baseball salary arbitration cases, a player and his team submit their separate arguments for what they think the player should be paid. The player thinks heís worth more; the team, less. At that point thereís no more negotiating. The arbitrator studies the arguments and selects the one she or he determines is most fair.

In a timber-environmentalist disagreement, a qualified arbitrator can examine both sides and render a decision in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost of some lawsuits.

A courtroom is no place to manage federal lands, nor is the American public properly served when its legal system is manipulated for delays, rather than decisions.

The answer? Play ball!

Print Article

Read More Editorial

See you in the yard, neighbor

April 22, 2018 at 5:00 am | Coeur d'Alene Press Next to the winter coat, letís hang up our differences for a few hours. Itís spring. The sun smiles. The yard beckons. Isnít that enough? Verily, though these are words that come mid-August many a ...

Comments

Read More

Campaign season brings in the trash

April 20, 2018 at 5:00 am | Coeur d'Alene Press The Tommy Ahlquist campaign has been punching fellow Idaho governor candidates Raul Labrador and Brad Little hard in Ahlquistís recent TV advertisements. The ads constitute negative campaigning, no q...

Comments

Read More

Working our way out of debt

April 18, 2018 at 5:00 am | Coeur d'Alene Press Accumulating more debt than you can pay off canít be justified, let alone be seen as a good thing. If thereís a priority that should be atop every Americanís to-do list, itís to get our countryís fi...

Comments

Read More

A model for voters to follow

April 13, 2018 at 5:00 am | Coeur d'Alene Press Will the next Shawn Keough please step forward? Oh, right. There wonít ever be another Shawn Keough. But maybe North Idaho can find more folks like her. The longest serving female Idaho senator jus...

Comments

Read More

Contact Us

(208) 664-8176
215 N. Second St
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814

©2018 The Coeur d'Alene Press Terms of Use Privacy Policy
X
X