Lawmaker introduces bill to prompt review of state forest harvests, citing staffing and market concerns

Representative Don O’Brien introduced H.477 to the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee as a conversation-starting bill aimed at speeding up management and timber harvests on state forest lands.

Committee members said the proposal grew from a field trip to Little River State Park and examples of delayed work on parcels that had been scheduled for harvest years earlier. O’Brien described the bill as “just to get that conversation going here. Like, what could we do?” and said the intent is to explore options such as using private foresters when agency capacity is limited.

The bill’s backers and committee commenters framed the measure around three practical goals: reduce long backlogs that leave planned cuts uncompleted, give loggers predictable work so they can invest in equipment, and align sustainable harvests with conservation partners. Committee discussion noted the scale of state holdings — speakers referenced figures in the mid-300,000s of acres — and pointed to examples such as a harvest at Little River State Park and another at the Loslady Wildlife Management Area as models for how timber removal can be timed and delivered.

Those who spoke in favor emphasized market and climate arguments: stable, predictable contracts with the state could allow harvest contractors to finance heavy equipment, and turning trees into durable wood products can store carbon. A committee member, recalling former Commissioner Mike Snyder, quoted his line that “even a clear cut is still a forest” while noting that fragmentation from development is the greater long-term risk.

Speakers also raised tradeoffs and local objections. One commenter observed that “there’s a politically, it’s really hard to do timber harvest now, given the push for, like, don’t cut any trees,” and the committee discussed outreach and education to explain how targeted, managed harvests can maintain habitat diversity and active forest management.

O’Brien and other members suggested the committee should consider whether the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (referred to in discussion as FPR) could increase throughput by contracting private foresters or altering how parcels are prioritized. A related point in committee remarks was whether state land enrolled in the Current Use program would meet management benchmarks if long delays continue; speakers raised that possibility hypothetically during the discussion.

The bill was presented as introductory business; no formal motion or vote was recorded in committee during the excerpted discussion. Committee members moved on to consider a separate dairy pricing bill later in the same meeting.