EDITORIAL: No on 137 — the wrong way to care for forests

Why Measure 137 Fails Our Forests

As someone who has spent years investigating how policy decisions impact natural resources, I can say with certainty that Measure 137 represents a dangerous misstep in our approach to forest stewardship. This measure, which seeks to amend the state constitution to allow for more intensive logging practices in public forests, is not only misguided but potentially catastrophic for the future of Colorado's woodlands.

"We're talking about more than just trees here—this is about protecting livelihoods, ecosystems, and community health."

Our forests are more than timber reserves. They are complex ecosystems that provide clean water, regulate climate, support wildlife habitats, and offer economic opportunities for local communities. Yet Measure 137 would undermine the very principles of sustainable forest management by prioritizing short-term profits over long-term environmental health.

The Flawed Logic Behind the Proposal

Proponents argue that increased logging will bring more revenue to counties and reduce wildfire risk. But this logic is deeply flawed. The measure would permit logging in areas that are currently protected, including those designated as critical habitat for endangered species or those that play a crucial role in watershed protection.

• It eliminates existing restrictions on logging near streams and wetlands
• It reduces requirements for reforestation efforts post-harvest
• It allows for clear-cutting in areas previously protected from such practices

This approach has been tried before, with disastrous consequences in other parts of the country. We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes here.

The Hidden Costs

What's particularly troubling is that this measure fails to account for the true costs of intensive logging. Environmental impact assessments are often superficial or overlooked entirely. When we allow corporations and developers to dictate policy, it's communities—especially rural ones—that pay the price.

The economic benefits touted by supporters are also overstated. While some local economies may see short-term gains from timber sales, those gains come at the expense of long-term stability. Once a forest is degraded through unsustainable practices, the ecosystem services it once provided—clean water, carbon sequestration, recreation opportunities—vanish.

A Call for Better Alternatives

There's another way forward. We can invest in science-based forest management that balances conservation with responsible use. This includes:

1. Preserving old-growth stands and critical habitat areas
2. Implementing selective logging practices that mimic natural disturbances
3. Supporting small-scale, community-owned forestry initiatives
4. Increasing funding for forest restoration and wildfire prevention programs

We've seen successful models elsewhere. States like Oregon and Washington have demonstrated that robust environmental protections don't have to come at the cost of economic opportunity—they can go hand in hand.

Why This Matters Now

With climate change accelerating, our forests face unprecedented challenges. Droughts, invasive species, and rising temperatures threaten to transform vast swaths of woodland into tinderboxes. The last thing we need is a policy that weakens the natural resilience of these ecosystems.

I urge voters to take a stand for real stewardship—not just for the sake of today's timber market, but for generations to come. Measure 137 is not about caring for forests; it's about caving in to corporate interests at the expense of public good.

This isn't just an environmental issue—it's a matter of accountability and integrity in our democratic process. We must vote 'No' on Measure 137 to preserve the integrity of our forest policy.