LCALDF Student Chapter Champions Protection of Oregon’s Birds

The Northwest Forest Plan (“NWFP”) was born out of the “timber wars” at the end of the twentieth century — a series of clashes between environmental groups and the timber industry, as well as the federal agencies that had enabled the industry to clear-cut ancient forests for decades. In particular, environmental groups decried the federal government’s failure to protect the northern spotted owl and other species like the marbled murrelet and red tree vole whose survival depends on the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest.

The original NWFP was adopted in 1994 as a compromise between these competing environmental and industrial interests. The NWFP covered more than 20 million acres of federal land across Oregon, Washington, and California, and established dual goals of protecting these forests’ biodiversity and promoting continuing timber harvests. These protections have served birds and other animals that rely upon this habitat by preserving the ancient forests they depend upon.

In November 2024, the U.S. Forest Service released a draft amendment to the NWFP. The draft sounded alarm bells for organizations like Bird Alliance of Oregon because of its call for a massive increase in logging. Bird Alliance of Oregon and partner Audubon/Bird Alliance chapters wrote a public comment objecting to the proposed amendment because it would open the door to expanded logging — including of old-growth trees — at the expense of vulnerable species.

As part of its dedication to public service, Lewis & Clark Law School’s student chapter of the Animal Legal Defense Fund volunteered with Bird Alliance to support research on the amendment’s potential impacts. This blog explains why old-growth trees are vital to protecting birds and other animals in the Pacific Northwest and how students Makaela Whalen (rising 3L), Camille Bond (rising 3L), Nicole Wood (rising 2L) and Nolan Ebner (rising 2L) collaborated with Bird Alliance of Oregon to support the fight for the protection birds.

Threats to closed-canopy species

The draft amendment lays out three alternative schemes for changing the NWFP, as well as a “no-action” alternative that would leave the current NWFP untouched. Two of the Forest Service’s three proposed alternatives propose to abandon the delicate balance that the NWFP has struck for decades between the protection of sensitive species and resource extraction.

These two alternatives would increase logging by raising the age limit after which trees may not be cut, preventing older trees from aging into the NWFP’s protections. In moist forests, this age limit would be raised from 80 to 120 years; in dry forest, it would be raised from 80 to 150 years.

These changes will affect wildlife, and there is a demonstrated need for continued protection of these species by preserving old-forest habitat with abundant large-diameter trees and thick canopy cover.

The northern spotted owl, the now-iconic species that was at the heart of the timber wars, lives only in old-growth forests. The great gray owl, listed as a strategy species under the Oregon Conservation Strategy, also depends on old forests for the plentiful nesting opportunities that they provide. The species frequently uses structures associated with old forest for nesting, including large-diameter trees, dead trees, and abandoned raptor and corvid nests.

The trees are also essential to protecting mammals such as the red tree vole and northern flying squirrel, which are part of the diet of the northern spotted owl. Red tree voles require a closed, interweaving tree canopy in order to safely travel between trees, avoiding the threats that predators pose on the ground. Northern flying squirrels also rely on old forests with thick canopy cover for food and nesting sites.

Logging as a wildfire management strategy

The Forest Service’s draft amendment also points to wildfire risk management as a basis for increasing logging in both dry and moist forests. This management strategy is based on the assumption that logging and thinning reduce wildfire risk; however, techniques that can successfully reduce wildfire risk in dry forests may not be appropriate in moist forests.

Scientific literature generally supports the idea that forest management practices such as mechanically thinning out stands of trees and using controlled fire to burn away fuel close to the ground can successfully reduce the risk of severe wildfire in dry forest areas. In moist forests, however, intensive logging and salvage logging (harvesting timber in areas affected by natural disturbances) can increase wildfire risk, and the effectiveness of controlled burning may be limited.

The future of the NWFP

The public comment period for the draft amendment ended in March. Though the proposed alternatives’ emphasis on greenlighting more logging seems to go hand-in-hand with the Trump administration’s policy of expanding domestic timber production, it is unclear how the Forest Service will now proceed with the process of updating the NWFP. The new administration could proceed with one of the proposed alternatives, or could scrap them and restart the drafting process.

The NWFP has allowed the numbers of large trees to increase, albeit slowly, across the covered area. It has also helped to reduce the flow of fine sediment from logging and other roads into aquatic habitats, where this sediment can interfere with salmon reproduction. However, the management plan is in need of updates to promote Indigenous stewardship of forests and to incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.

Advocates for wildlife should demand that the Forest Service amend the NWFP to reflect these changes, while retaining old-growth and mature forest and taking a nuanced approach to wildfire risk management that incorporates research of the effects of different strategies in different types of habitat. Doing so would help to ensure that a new NWFP lives up to its promise of putting non-human species’ survival needs on a more even footing with the interests of extractive industry. To learn more about how to get involved in protecting birds and the habitats they rely upon in the Pacific Northwest, visit this link.

About the Author: Camille Bond is a rising third-year law student at Lewis & Clark Law School. She is pursuing a Certificate in Animal Law and will serve as Editor-in-Chief of Animal Law Review for the 2025–26 academic year. She is passionate about wildlife protection and about untangling the connections between animal agriculture, climate change, and biodiversity collapse.

The Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) was founded in 2008 with a mission to educate the next generation of animal law advocates and advance animal protection through the law. With vision and bold risk-taking, CALS has since developed into a world-renowned animal law epicenter. In addition to JD study, CALS offers an advanced degree program in-person and online. CALS’  Alumni-in-Actionfrom more than 30 countries are making a difference for animals around the world. CALS is a self-funded Center within the law school operating under the Lewis & Clark College 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, and is able to provide these educational opportunities through donations and grants.