Jaime Herrera Butler is a Republican, a former congresswoman.

She represented.

She represented Washington's third congressional district in the U.S. House from 2011 until 2023.

Prior to that, she served in the state House from 2007 until 2010, representing parts of Clark and Cowlitz counties.

Dave Upthegrove is a Democrat, was elected to the King County Council in 2013 and is currently council chair.

Prior to that, he served five terms in the Washington State House representing South King County.

a quick overview of the office.

the Commissioner of Public Lands is elected to a four year term.

They oversee the Department of Natural Resources.

the department oversees roughly 6 million acres of public land across Washington, including 3 million acres of what are known as state trust lands.

These trust lands generate revenue mostly from logging for schools, counties and other parts of government.

the department's total revenue in fiscal 2023 was about $474 million.

It has 2200 employees, roughly, and it serves as the state's lead wildfire fighting agency.

lands that the department manages are also open to recreation and generate revenue from sources other than logging, as well as aquaculture, farming and commercial real estate.

Both candidates have agreed to the rules of the debate prior to us, taking the stage.

We'll alternate questions between the two of them, and each of them will get a chance toward the end of the debate to ask one another question.

so with that, we'll move to opening statements.

Jamie, prior to the, sorry, Dave actually won the coin toss prior to the debate, but chose to go second, giving his opening statement.

So, Jamie, the floor is yours.

You have one minute for your opening statement.

Thank you.

Well, so my husband, Dan and I are raising our kiddos.

And what is the path of the Yakult burn, which stood for over a century, is the largest forest fire Washington state history.

Killed dozens of people and injustice past decade that horrible record has already been surpassed three times.

Too many of our forests are under managed or outright neglected, and they've turned into crowded disease Tinder boxes.

And they're just waiting for a spark.

Fires run rampant every summer.

They're ruining our days with smoke, and they're emitting tons of carbon into the air.

Now, if you're unfortunate enough to live in one of the path paths of one of these fires, they can cause unimaginable heartache.

I won't leave my children or your children.

A legacy of burning forests and choking smoke.

We must do better.

I got to serve southwest Washington and Congress.

That's one of the most heavily forested areas in the country.

And I got to work hard to make sure our, not our national forests are getting restored to remove the dead and disease trees that serve as a fuel for the fires that plague us.

I'll bring those same priorities to our state as your next lands.

Commissioner.

Well, good afternoon.

Managing our public lands in the public interest for all the people of the state of Washington is what you deserve in your next state lands.

Commissioner.

The commissioner has big responsibilities to manage aquatic lands, timberlands, agricultural lands, wildfire prevention, response, recreation.

The Commissioner also has an opportunity to benefit our economy and our clean energy future.

The people of the state of Washington have strong conservation values, and I will carry those values into this job as commissioner.

You deserve a commissioner who is balanced, independent minded and inclusive.

I am that leader.

Our state lands don't belong to industry.

They don't belong to big business.

They belong to we the people.

Their public lands.

Our lands.

And I look forward today to laying out my vision for managing our natural resources for everyone.

All right.

Thank you to both our candidates for those opening statements.

so over the past decade, an average of 470,000 acres have burned annually in the state of Washington.

Residents here in the Spokane area have experienced the devastating effects of these wildfires, or as recently as last, as recently as last year with the Great Fire.

Jamie, if elected, what would your priorities be for changing or improving how the state manages, manages or fights wildfires?

Or are you largely going to stay the course with how the department is handling, wildfires currently?

So I will give our current commissioner a lot of credit.

She's applied a plan here on the east side that is starting to work, and it has to do with restoring our forest to health.

If you really want to combat these fires, our forests have to be healthy.

Healthier forests can last through these fires.

But if they're unhealthy, like many of our forests, especially on the west side, are, they're going to burn.

And so what I will do is make sure that we're using a similar approach of collaboration, bringing everyone to the table to make sure that we get input from the community, input from First Nations, who, by the way, have done this well, and input from those who are directly impacted to make sure that we're bringing health to our forest.

And if we do that, we're going to sequester more carbon.

If we do that, we're going to make sure that our public schools have more funding.

If we do that, we're going to pass on to the next generation of Washingtonians the legacy that we all cherish, which is a beautiful and abundant resource rich state.

What we're told right now is that we have to set it aside to protect it.

That's all science, folks.

That's a generational that's what the federal lands.

What happened on the federal lands?

And they're burning and they're falling into disrepair.

And the species that depend on those lands are falling even further behind in terms of restoration.

I don't want to see that happen in Washington state.

And I'll be the leader who uses results to change that tide.

Thank you.

David, you care to respond?

Thank you.

Wildfire prevention response is critical for public safety and for public health.

I agree with much of what my opponent said.

one of the things you learn in local government is that emergency response has four phases prevention, preparation, response and recovery.

Obviously, prevention is the most cost effective and smartest strategy.

I support increasing our investments in forest health.

More controlled burns.

More noncommercial thinning.

More commercial thinning.

I also want to expand this work into Western Washington.

The department's made good progress in eastern Washington, but we're seeing increased fires on the West side.

I want to implement effectiveness monitoring to make sure these treatments are working.

I don't want to overlook routine things like invasive species removal and land maintenance.

I also think there's a growing role we're seeing in the agricultural sector, with cattle ranching and the role it plays in reducing the fuel for fire.

So I think there's some real win wins between those sectors.

It's about our public safety.

Jaime of 30s for a rebuttal, if you'd care to make one.

I think that we do need, like my opponent said, to invest in and increase our investment in forest health, which means we should be setting more of it aside and leaving it to itself to burn.

My opponent has a plan to set aside about almost 80,000 acres on day one, and I support the idea, which is to protect it.

We've learned from the federal forest that if you walk away and leave them mismanaged or under managed, they fall into disrepair and they cost us environmental, environmentally, and they cost us health wise for our communities.

Dave, DNR has faced criticism for running behind on timber sales.

The agency says it's now falling behind by about 445 million board feet over the past decade.

That's equivalent to about one year's worth of timber harvest in western Washington.

Do you think the state's timber sale process is working efficiently and as intended?

And if not, how do you propose improving it?

If so, are you okay with that level of backlog?

A strong, healthy wood products industry is vital for the state of Washington, and my vision is one where we maintain sustainable harvest on our state lands at the existing level.

I think we have opportunities within the department to try additional strategies, sort sales, those kind of things to get more dollars and more benefit out of the existing forest lands.

I think we have opportunities to do better.

I my proposal is that we make some modest changes to where we harvest, specifically, a small group of older forests that bring significant benefit, tremendous benefit for climate and biodiversity, and instead harvest other forests in those same communities.

We also can do better by increasing our trust holdings, by acquiring replacement timberlands using existing revenue streams.

We've done this successfully before.

This was a tool that was used to help create the Mountains to Sound Greenway up the I-90 corridor.

And by doing this, we can nurture rural economies, sustain good jobs, and fully fund our public services like our schools.

I think this is one way we can manage our public lands for the benefit of everyone will still maintaining those harvest levels.

Jim.

Well, I believe that, if you pull land out of the trust.

So half of the land in the trust right now, which is a is a fiduciary responsibility to this office, meaning by law, this commissioner is supposed to harvest certain timberlands and that money is supposed to go to public schools or fire or hospitals in the communities.

And right now, about half a little over half of that land has been completely taken off the rolls.

I'm not going to change that.

That is what it is.

It's done for conservation purposes.

I'm also going to protect old growth because I believe in that.

However, about 49% is supposed to be being harvested, and my opponent has now supported at least three different pauses, cancellations or or cancellations of timber harvest that are supposed to go to these rural schools.

And these schools are hurting.

They've laid off teachers.

They've increased class sizes.

So what I'd like to hear is a plan for how we're going to sustainably manage that land and harvest that timber, sustain the economy and the environment because they're not mutually exclusive.

so a major issue that's confronting DNR right now, that's been alluded to in the responses so far in this debate, is certain.

Oh, I'm sorry, I skipped a year about my my my dad.

Go ahead.

Yep.

No problem.

I want to be very clear.

My plan is to maintain and sustain our existing harvest levels by harvesting in different parcels in those same taxing districts and the long term by acquiring replacement timberlands.

We can do this and still maintain, full funding for our public services, including our schools.

And let me be clear.

Deferring the harvest of those small group of forest lands does not preclude us from managing them for forest health or for wildfire prevention.

so as as has been alluded to so far, a major issue confronting the Department of Natural Resources right now is what some advocates call legacy Forest.

some people disagree with that term, arguing it's not rooted in a legal or scientific framework, but kind of in a nutshell, these are older forests, but not old growth that contain trees that might be 80 to 100 years old.

They haven't been logged or they were not so long ago.

They've kind of taken on the characteristics of a naturally growing northwest forest.

So, Jamie, you you are obviously critical of, Dave's proposal to set aside some of these lands about 80,000 acres.

Is that as has been alluded to.

But advocates for these forests say they're, irreplaceable in many ways in some of the last tracts of their kind in western Washington.

So why, why do you oppose setting aside or some, some or all of this land?

Because it's the environment, the hunting are not mutually exclusive.

If we harvest pieces of those for sustainably meaning some it now, some in the future, they will grow and they will be healthy and you will still get the timber revenue when you set it aside.

And you follow the model of the federal government.

The whole thing dies.

If you've ever been on a federal forest, you know that it's in Washington state.

They're pretty dead.

They're quiet.

There's no opening in the canopy.

No sunlight hits the forest floor, which means the critters that need that flora and fauna don't get it.

Which means things like the gnat, the spotted owl don't have the food that they need to nest healthy and safely.

Which is why the spotted owl continues to decline.

So the set aside and leave it walk away model has been tried 40 years ago and it has proven not to work.

I'm simply saying we need a new approach.

My opponent has advocated with these advocacy groups.

He takes credit for it for years and years.

And this is the policy that has been in place at our state for for a long time now.

It's not working.

We're emitting more carbon every year right now than we were in the last decade.

We are seeing more forest in on the west side of Washington burn than ever before in recorded history, and we're seeing more threatened species go in the wrong direction.

So what I'm simply saying is the approach of set it aside and walk away doesn't work.

We need to apply science.

There are enough scientists and PhDs and foresters and biologists at the DNR to create a small university.

Right?

We need to stop letting politics from timber groups or advocacy groups.

Yankees from side to side.

When it comes to the policy, we need to stick to the policy.

Thank you for that response.

Dave, you have one minute to respond.

Sure.

I feel like my opponent's arguing against a straw man.

deferring to harvest of a small group of older forest does not preclude us from managing them for forest health and for wildfire prevention.

And in the meantime, we can see tremendous benefits, both to our climate and to biodiversity.

I think it's rich hearing my opponent talk about climate and biodiversity.

during her time in Congress, she voted to gut our Endangered Species Act.

I want to improve habitat for wildlife.

My opponent wants to repeal the Climate Commitment Act.

She wants to pull us out of the Paris climate Accords.

My vision is one where we embrace our climate, future.

we can have a strong, healthy forest practices industry and do better by our climate and by biodiversity.

And that's my vision.

I voted to modernize USA.

It's a 40 year old plus law and it needs to work.

And less than 3% of the species that have been listed.

3.7% actually have come into recovery.

It's not working.

We have to do better by them and by our schools and our children.

And I would ask my opponent, when he pulls that 80,000 acres off of the trust land, what's he going to say to those school kids?

This is what land is he identified to show them that he's going to harvest and return that money to them, or when it burns and we lose all growth.

What's his plan?

That's the problem.

We need a new way of thinking.

Thank you.

Dave, kind of on the flip side of what I ask Jamie just now, you know, the American, the American Forest Resource Council and other critics of your plan say that it moves the goalposts on prior conservation agreements, that it would also take about $2 billion of high value timber off the table.

Why?

What?

What is your plan?

How would you go about doing this in a way that it doesn't hurt Washington businesses or revenue for schools?

It's a great question.

in the short term, we harvest other timber parcels.

We did a review of all the taxing districts and nearly every taxing district in the state.

There's suitable timber to harvest in the long term.

We use existing funding sources to acquire private timberlands at risk of conversion.

By doing this, we can maintain our funding levels for public services, including our schools.

That's important to me.

I've traveled all over the state, small towns, rural communities.

and it's important to me that every part of the state is treated equitably.

That's why it's important to me that the policy proposals that I put forward maintain funding for our schools and for those public services.

But I think we need to lean into some of the challenges we're facing with climate and with biodiversity.

And I believe, we can do that better.

Jim, I agree we can do it better.

That's the problem.

What we've been doing hasn't worked in the plan that my opponent has would cost us over 9000 jobs over the next 15 years.

It would cost 1500 jobs among pulp and paper workers.

Those are working class people in rural communities who have taken it on the chin because of special interests in one part of our state, have decided to make their home a park.

The reality is, those parks are now burning those species and that habitat has fallen into disrepair.

I'm simply saying we have to do better.

What we've been doing hasn't worked.

Our emissions are up.

Our forests are turning into tinder boxes, and the species need us.

Not to mention the one species I'm the most concerned about, which is the endangered American wage earner.

I have walked through these schools and look these kids in the eye, and they're not getting a free and fair public education.

And to me, that's an issue of justice.

When they have the revenue source and the job opportunities in their community and powers that be not based on science but on emotion, pull it out of their reach.

That's not fair.

It's time for a change.

Well, I don't know how it costs jobs if we maintain our existing harvest levels.

my commitment is to fully funding our public schools and our public services by harvesting, other parcels in the short term and broadening our trust in the long term.

We can't always use this as an excuse to not think strategic about how do we meet our climate challenges, how do we do better for biodiversity?

The state plan with the federal government to manage habitat has always had, as one of its objectives, the restoration of 5 to 10% of our lowland evergreen forests, to these old growth light conditions.

And I want to manage the lands consistent with the habitat conservation.

Thank you for that reply.

Jamie, what is one idea you have for how you might work with or find common ground with environmental or conservation groups?

If elected?

So this isn't something I have to take my word for.

I want you to look at my record.

So on the Columbia River, we have had threatened and endangered salmon species come under severe threat of extinction due to predation from an invasive, non-native sea lion.

Working together with my Democratic colleague Kurt Schrader across the river.

We put together a plan that was in conjunction with tribal leaders, with fish and wildlife leaders, biologists, conservation groups to pass a bill that allowed trained fish scientists and tribal members to remove some of these invasive species and protect those native salmon runs.

And we're seeing results right now because of it.

The thing that people need to understand is I, I approach this not assuming I know everything, but I know how to create relationships and build collaboration and invite people to the table who don't think like me, because that's what a good leader does.

I represented a swing state, a swing seat in Congress.

I had to get an earned support from people across the aisle in order to do that job, and that's a commitment that I make to people here and across this state.

I don't care if we're in the same party.

I care if we want the same goals, which is to preserve our habitat, to preserve our way of life, to make sure that our children aren't having their lives shortened due to forest fire smoke.

I want them to know what's special about this state, and I do think my opponent owes us the answer to the question, what land has he identified that he's going to replace this harvest that he wants to take out?

Like he keep saying we'll do other harvest.

Show me some, because the three counties Whatcom, Thurston and Clallam whose schools rely on this money, need it now.

Thank you.

Dave.

You know, I think it is important, as an elected official to work with people of diverse perspectives.

You know, I'm a mainstream Democrat from the suburbs.

I like to say I'm tempered by suburban sensibility.

I've been challenged from the left in my elections for, for sometimes challenging the orthodoxy of my own party.

my history in the legislature, someone who is independent minded, who brings together people with different views in order to solve problems.

And that's the approach I'll take, whether it's working with environmental community, whether it's working with industry, whether it's working with local governments, federal governments to be successful in managing these lands successfully for everyone in the state.

We've got to be working together.

And that's my commitment.

Jamie.

Any response?

I think it's important to recognize that.

I also want to see biodiversity increase in the state, and I want us to adapt and fight climate change with the best tools we know how.

And that means making sure that our forests are healthy.

So when you pull aside so half of the land that has been set aside for the trust beneficiaries for these school kids is already set aside for conservation.

What my opponent is proposing is to take 10% out of what's left and set it aside.

What we're seeing is it will fall into disrepair.

Let's fight climate change and get our forests healthy.

Dave, what is one what's one way you have what's one idea you have for how you might work with the timber industry to to strengthen the state timber industry.

If elected to this position?

It's going to be critical for me to work collaboratively with the industry in all aspects of the operation of this department.

to ensure we're sustainably harvesting our public lands, to fund our public services and do it in a way that is healthy for next generation.

I see a tremendous opportunity to work together on workforce development.

we see a employment cliff of both in the private sector and the public sector of those skilled workers.

And I think we can collaborate there.

I think we can collaborate on ways to maximize the dollars off of some of our existing footprints, in terms of how we how we harvest.

You know, my door is always open.

It always has been and always will be.

and my vision is one where we're making sure that these are healthy industries, but we're doing it in a way that's that manages our lands for everyone in the entire state of Washington.

So I'm looking forward to working not just with the timber industry, but also with our aquaculture industry, with agriculture, with everyone who uses these public lands to make sure that we're generating revenue for the trust, meeting those responsibilities to public services and doing it in a thoughtful manner.

the economic benefits of all these industries are meaningful and important to the state of Washington, and that's something I value as well.

And by managing a small subset of forests differently, we can still maintain that promise.

Thank you Jamie.

My opponent keeps saying he's going to manage it differently or at in other land, yet he hasn't identified that land.

His goal is to listen to these extremists who keep saying pull the land out of circulation.

And what I want those folks to know is I too want to protect it, but you have to make it healthy.

And the other piece is he's talking about workforce development.

His plan would cost us 1500 pulp and paper mill jobs.

We have mills closing in Tacoma in Nepal.

We've had closures in Clallam.

These jobs, once this workforce is gone.

You can't just flip a switch and get it back.

These are trained folks who know how to operate.

So those contractors, those mill workers actually need support by having something to do.

My opponent's plan, with its equivalent of two sawmills, would go down because of it.

And we actually don't have enough to do the forest restoration work as mandated by the Constitution that this office take care of.

So I really believe that our goals are very similar.

How we get there is different.

I ask you to judge us based on our results.

My opponent clearly misunderstands my plan.

my intention is to maintain our existing harvest levels by harvesting other parcels in those same taxing districts.

And then in the long run, I believe there will be opportunities opportunistically to pick up additional Timberlands.

you know, there's a lot of pressures on the industry right now.

I recognize that automation, international challenges.

The state Department of Natural Resources can be an important partner in that, and I'm committed to being that partner.

Thank you.

Jenny, if elected, you would take office at a time when the state legislature would be ramping up its 2025 session.

The legislature will also be writing a new two year budget next year.

What is one, budget item or piece of legislation you would push for in the upcoming session if elected?

So part of what I'd like to do is really reorient this office to not need to go hat in hand, to Olympia every year for money to do the civil culture work that it's supposed to be doing.

If we take care of these trust lands, for example, that money can come off of that forest and stay in that forest to do the civil culture work, the hazardous fuels reduction, the riparian work for streams and fish and habitat, and then the receipts, part of the receipts can go to those schools.

So if we do that alone, we're going to see more revenue and we're going to maximize it.

We're also going to make sure that we're keeping fairness to those kiddos.

I believe, you know, always relying on the legislature.

Is it it's a risky proposition.

I've been around budgets.

You want to make sure that you got a plan, and my plan is to bring back some of that workforce, to get some of these folks trained to work with contractors and public private partnerships, and to get more people doing the work to get the force healthy and see their jobs increase.

You know, my opponent mentioned international challenges that are important and that are impacting our force.

The paperwork we import 30 to 40% of our wood products here in Washington state.

That's unacceptable.

We are exporting our footprint, and we're importing wood from places like Russia.

We're giving them money when we could support these pulp and paper workers and these mills in these communities by doing the work in Walker and in Clallam in Thurston County for these school kids, keeping us healthy.

It's a question of how we get there and what we've been doing in the state hasn't been working.

So I would ask folks, let's take a new approach.

Let's do something different.

Thank you.

The same question.

it's your chance to respond.

Or if you would like to reframe, you know, answer the same question.

I guess you can go around.

Sure.

I believe my experience in the state legislature will help me be an effective advocate for the agency in the issues and the lands that we serve.

I'm interested in, continuing to advocate for increases in recreation, for example.

I think our recreational sites are bursting at the seams, and I want to champion funding for, more recreational sites, off road vehicle users, horseback riders, target shooters, hunters, fishers.

I want to advocate for increased investments in forest health, for wildfire prevention and response, and I want to continue to advocate for the resources we need to keep our environment safe and clean, enhancing our aquatic lands restoration teams, for example.

at the end of the day, I'm going to be an advocate for, balance, inclusiveness and managing these public lands in a way that creates jobs, is good for industry, but also upholds our commitment to the next generation.

Thanks, Jamie.

So I do think you should judge us on our experience in the in the legislature.

So my opponent talks a lot about when he was in the legislature and now he's he's one of the he's the chair of the King County Council.

And on his watch as the environmental chair, we actually saw CO2 emissions go up both there and at this.

And at the King County Council.

They set their own goals and they missed them by 75%.

And part of the plan is let's set aside more land.

And I keep thinking, if we don't set aside healthy forests, if these folks aren't healthy, they won't sequester the carbon.

I do believe that you should judge Earth based on what we're doing.

You know, I fought for funding to restore over 9500 miles of salmon habitat, rivers and streams.

I'm sorry, Jamie, that's not.

state aquatic lands generated about $31 million for the department in fiscal 2023.

And DNR oversees about 2100 acres of state owned aquatic land.

this mostly tied land that's under lease for, aquaculture, such as oyster farming.

Dave, what are your proposals or thoughts on how the department might do anything different with, its aquaculture programs, or do you think it's currently on the right course?

Sure.

our aquaculture programs and our aquatic lands provide a good economic opportunity.

They also provide good jobs, in those local communities.

we need to help them.

We need them to be successful.

And I think one of the greatest challenges we're facing right now is that of invasive species.

Whether it's the green crab or others.

I want to work with Department of Fish and Wildlife on our state owned aquatic lands to make sure we are managing them.

in healthy ways to to reduce the threat of those invasive species.

We need to be thoughtful in how we do this.

We need to make sure we're following the best science and continuing to do the research on the impacts these aquaculture activities.

But I believe that they can coexist with a healthy environment.

and, we have an opportunity to help them.

help them along.

You know, aquaculture is just one of the many examples of how we can generate revenue, whether it's our forest lands, whether it's our aquaculture lands, whether it is our agricultural lands.

It's important for us to steward these lands in a way that upholds our commitment to our trust beneficiaries, as well as to the people of the state of Washington and in these rural communities.

Aquaculture is critical.

It, I've seen the jobs it creates.

but I think we just need to be thoughtful as we move forward, and we need to make sure we're following the best science.

And we need to make sure that we are, doing it in a sustainable manner.

that keeps our water quality healthy.

Thank you.

Jamie.

Well, I think part of it starts with being a both someone who empowers the folks who live along the coast, the tribes that live along the coast.

And it also means you have to be their ally.

You know, when I was in Congress, I worked very closely with my coastal communities and El Barco and Pacific County, making sure that those shellfish growers or cranberry growers or folks or tribes who have lived there for longer than any of us, had what they needed to fight off invasive species, had permitting times that didn't waste hours and hours and days and months and livelihoods.

So I'll be an advocate for them within this office to make sure that we empower them to protect what's special.

So we have very unique native shellfish on our coast that are threatened because of degradation with eelgrass, with invasive species coming over from Asia.

And I don't know that that's an area that has been fully explored from this office.

I would love to build on what's been done and make sure that they know they have an advocate in me, because I, I don't want us to become the Bay in Maryland.

I don't want us to see our waters degraded.

Thank you.

Dave, I want to make sure our Aquatic Lands Division is not the forgotten stepchild of the agency as it sometimes becomes.

these lands are a tremendous resource manager for the next generation.

I want to increase, the work we do to protect them.

I want to increase.

We have some aquatic land restoration teams.

that need to be making better progress on eelgrass replacement.

Getting rid of those nasty creosote pilings, the derelict fishing gear.

And I think working together with the community, we can continue to make good progress.

Okay.

the Department of Natural Resources has proposed using about 10,000 acres of its forest land for a carbon sequestration project.

The idea with this project is to leave trees standing, and the credits could be sold on carbon markets against the carbon capture benefits of the trees.

and the idea here is that this would yield revenue for the state and also benefit the climate.

The project has been tied up in litigation, but, Jamie, what are your views on this project specifically or more generally on using Department of Natural Resources lands for carbon sequestration?

Well, as you say, that's tied up in litigation.

So I'm not going to comment on the litigation.

But I'll tell you, overall, I'm very open to new and innovative strategies that help us fight the carbon, emissions that we have in smart, responsible ways.

And I can tell you, I know for certain that we have the ability to keep, our forests clean and healthy.

And for every acre of managed DNR land, it sequesters about 11.7, metric tons of carbon.

And considering as a state, we've been increasing our carbon, emissions.

This is a really good way for us to immediately change that direction.

We have to wait for some accord in Paris and ten year goal.

Let's do it now.

And that's where I would point to like that's why.

That's why I think we we can't just set aside lands and walk away.

Not just because they bring money for local schools, but because it allows those trees to truly be a carbon sink.

The trees are released.

The most carbon are actually the the, the older forests.

Now, I'm not going to touch old growth just because both.

It's the law and as a principle of mine.

But within those forests that are that are younger and have the ability to store that carbon, if we then use that tree locally and we use those wood products locally, they're sequestering the carbon longer than the life of the tree.

And we're using it in Washington state.

We're not importing it from another country or another state.

And we're not exporting our guilt.

We need to be smart about how we approach it, and not be too afraid to use the innovation and technology at hand.

Thank you Dave.

The carbon sequestration project, in my mind, is an issue of innovation.

an issue of responsibility.

I think we do have a responsibility to be innovative and try new approaches.

it is a pilot project.

but I think, we need to be open to new ways to, achieve revenue from all the broad values that a healthy forest provides.

And so I am interested in getting that framework set up, administratively, even if right now it's pennies on the dollar to see if a system like that could work, in the long term, diversifying revenue sources, particularly when it, creates opportunities to do better for our climate and clean air.

I think that's a good thing.

And as one of the values that I want to support, Jim, I think I would also add, you know, I'm not I am very passionate about switching directions, but I'm not afraid to use the science to set things aside that need to be.

You know, when I was in Congress, I helped get about 388 acres in the Indian Wells, watershed over in Waco that surrounded the communities water resource, water, center.

And that was going to keep that clean for them.

The point that I'm making is we need to use the best available science and apply it to each landscape to get the job done.

So the Department of Natural Resources in recent years has also looked at transferring some of the land it owns to be used, for housing.

This is in general land that's not suitable for logging.

there is also just a general push in Washington right now to find new land to be used for clean energy projects, apart from carbon sequestration, which we just discussed.

could either or.

Sorry.

Dave, could you talk a little more about, ways that you think land could be used in alternative ways that the department, you know, hasn't been using it to date?

Yep.

We need to maximize the use of all of our public lands to the best public benefit.

As you noted, we may have some opportunities to build housing on a few stray parcels in urban growth areas, but those opportunities are limited, largely due to infrastructure challenges.

But I'm excited about continuing to pursue those.

we do have a responsibility to meet our clean energy goals in the state.

The legislature set, a requirement.

the utilities provide all their energy from clean energy sources by 2045.

And that means we need to accommodate the development of both energy generation and transmission in this state to meet those goals.

And that's challenging.

And for me, that means working collaboratively with tribes.

It means working collaboratively with agriculture.

It means working collaboratively with local governments in the environmental community to help identify where are those appropriate sites.

I propose the development of a new clean energy trust where when we do identify appropriate sites, DNR tries to acquire them, and purchase them, lease them to the clean energy developers, put that money back into those communities for rural economic development while helping meet our clean energy goals.

And avoiding those kinds of conflicts.

I know that clean energy presents both opportunities and risks for agriculture, and we shouldn't be pitting them against each other.

We need to be working collaboratively, for new ways to integrate them into site them appropriately.

Because, we need to maintain our agricultural lands, respect tribal treaty rights.

But we've also got to ensure we have the energy and we get it where it needs to go in the state.

Thank you.

Jamie.

So there are 6 million diverse acres in the state that this, commissioner would manage.

And I do think you have to look at each region uniquely.

The one thing I keep hearing, though, is let's move more land out of the trust and into other opportunities.

That only works if the land is completely landlocked.

And it's a checkerboard and it's not it's not producing.

You know, this office owns lands that have commercial leases, the Costco in there, Fred Meyer in Issaquah or on DNR lamps.

Right.

they have communications equipment.

There are other retail facilities.

It provides revenue with the best available source, but the heart and soul.

And the reason this office was created, at state.

Well, it was office.

It was create through the legislature.

But at statehood, the goal was to provide a sustaining, ongoing revenue source for public schools.

And we now know we have the technology to do this, sustain our forests as we harvest within them.

That keeps the forest healthy and the critters that need them healthy.

I don't want to move all this land into something else.

It will burn.

Thank you.

so, sorry I lost track.

Do you still have a rebuttal coming, sir?

Okay.

yes, you have 30s.

Sorry about that.

I think taking advantage of opportunities to bring new land into the trust for the development of new utility scale, clean energy is something that would be good for our economy, create good local union jobs, and help us meet our energy needs.

it is going to be hard work.

It's going to take collaboration.

There is a lot of conflict.

That's what I've spent my career doing.

Bringing diverse parties together to get things done.

And one of the things that excites me most about this job is the ability to help us meet that goal by working collaboratively.

Thank you.

Jamie, based on your conversations with tribal stakeholders, what are some of the ways you think the department could work more closely with tribes or better incorporate their concerns, priorities, or knowledge into how state lands are managed?

This is an area where our current commissioner has done well.

She created a position within her kind of executive team of a direct tribal liaison.

I would like to build on that.

You know, as I've been traveling the state and meeting with different tribal members, tribal chairs, tribal councils, I've been soliciting their advice on how best we can collaborate on the thing that we all care about, which is protecting our resources and passing them on.

A number of them have shared concerns with me about how the state will or won't just do what it wants.

You know, a good example is an energy project that is, moving forward that's come out of the governor's office, in eastern Washington, and the tribe has concerns about the cultural impacts to that land and lands that they're going to be moved out of their use.

I really believe that the government is not here to tell the people of Washington how to live and what to do.

The government is here to support and empower the people of Washington.

These are your public lands.

So I commit to having an open door, not just a tribal leaders, although I'm making that case to as many as I can get in front of.

And I've worked with them during my time in Congress.

But to conservationists, to young people to to a senior citizens who are worried about smoke in their communities, who want more trust on transfers for parks.

I think that's the thing that this office needs to move forward on and build on, and that's something that the Kirk commissioner has done as a Democrat.

She's reached out to Republicans.

As a Republican, I've reached out to Democrats, and I commit to doing that as we move forward.

Thank you.

Dave.

We have a responsibility to honor tribal treaty rights, and strengthen the co-management role of tribes that are within those treaties.

And for me, that means early upfront consultation, real joint planning efforts.

not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also how we avoid the entanglements further down the road.

in my current role, I've worked with my local tribes to get some large projects successfully done.

as a leader of the King County Flood Control District, we implemented a major new public safety flood control project that also improved habitat recreation and took care of some tribal resources in the, traditional grounds of the Muckleshoot tribe.

And that was done by working collaboratively.

And that's the model that I want to follow.

Looking forward, I envision them being important partners.

I'm excited to have a not just a tribal liaison, but really incorporate, that commitment into all the work of the department.

I also think we have opportunities to learn from these tribes about their historic practices and how we can improve the management of our lands for everyone in the state.

Thank you.

Jamie, I agree we can learn a lot from how tribes have managed in this state long before we were here.

They manage our forests and our rivers and our streams and I think that it is true.

As somebody who's worked on the federal level, government to government, we have to respect those treaty rights.

But there's also there are also treaty free tribes in our state.

And I commit even if the federal government hasn't recognized them.

as commissioner, I would make sure that they were at the table and making decisions when it comes to their watersheds, their lands, and how they want to take care of their people.

So a lot of this comes back to making sure they can also sustain their members, and I'll support that.

Thank you.

Dave, do you see opportunities for expanding recreational access on DNR land?

if so, where and how would you go about doing that?

Absolutely.

You know, I spent all my summers in high school and college working for the Boy Scouts, leading treks, the North Cascade mountains.

And I think the way you create the next generation of conservationists isn't by preaching at people.

It's by giving them the opportunity to get out and enjoy the outdoors hunting, fishing, biking.

it starts by engaging those user groups.

the way we avoid conflicts, the way we keep people from engaging in recreational opportunities that damage the lands, is by providing appropriate places for people to recreate.

I'd like to see an additional RV park.

I'd like to see a, a safe, managed shooting range.

I would like to see more trails developed.

This all takes money.

That's going to take partnerships with the legislature to potentially, federal help as well.

But those user groups know the land best.

They know what amenities and what attributes are needed to develop recreational sites in ecologically thoughtful ways and ways that respect tribal lands.

but I think this is something that, as Lands commissioner, when I look back at the end of my term, I want to be able to say that that I increased these recreational opportunities for everyone in the state.

I think that's a legacy that that people would value.

Jamie.

So growing up in this state.

Hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping in our public lands is something that we have to pass on.

That's one of the things that makes us unique.

And I've supported the like the Legacy Trails remediation program, because I know it helps do that restoration work on those trails.

Some of these do collaboration efforts with some of these groups RV users, backcountry horsemen.

I do think we also need to make sure that we are protecting the forest road access to these places.

You know, when the federal government said we're going to about 4000 miles of roads on the Gifford Pinchot, I had to step in and protect those roads, because if we can't access these trails, whether it's for safety or firefighting or horseback riding, we don't get to get in there.

And that's part of the leave it, lock it up and walk away movement that we have to fight in the state.

If we're going to continue to recreate and appreciate our natural lands.

There's.

I'm excited to open up lands, to have more managed lands and to increase the use of our public lands.

We have enough land in the state that we can accommodate all of the different user groups.

I know it.

we have to be thoughtful.

We have to have upfront engagement.

and I think this is a really key part of how do we make sure these public lands are used for the benefit of everyone in the state?

Because that's something that everyone benefits from, of any income level, wherever you are in the state.

Being able to get out and enjoy these beautiful lands, thank you is important.

Jamie, the the east side of the state is geographically distant from Olympia.

The forests on the east side are obviously different than the forests on the west side.

The east side also has some of the state's greatest fire risks.

you and Dave are both from the west side of the state.

what would you do, if anything, to increase the department's connection with Eastern Washington?

Or try to make sure that Eastern Washington's concerns are being incorporated into the department's priorities.

So I got my start working in policy, working for Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

She's the Eastern Washington congresswoman here, for 20 years.

And one of the most important lessons I learned from her was it doesn't matter how important an organization is or how much money it has, if they're a constituent, they get your they get your ear.

whether it's traveling to places like Okanagan and Omak or down into Asotin to meet with fire commissioners over into Chelan or Tri cities.

Spokane, certainly the valley, these are all areas that I've traveled just on this campaign to sit down with local communities and hear their concerns.

I do believe and I'm I'm from southwest Washington.

We don't quite consider we were our own unique place.

We have to have our own people as well.

But I got to go to school in the Puget Sound area and lived there for a long time.

I think our state's amazing and we are an amazing saying.

We should celebrate the fact that we are different when we come from different areas.

The thing that's so important to me though, is that we value each person.

We can adamantly disagree, but the humanization, like the understanding of being able to walk in their shoes.

You know, I got this summer to sit down with some folks after the ten year complex Carlton fire, right.

And hear their stories of recovery.

Hear how they wish that the department had done better.

This was the not this commission or the previous one, and ask how I would approach it to make sure that those communities are supported, even though they don't know where I grew up or where I live.

And so I think sitting down with these people and listening to them and being willing to respond.

Thank you.

Dave.

Well, I can't disagree with any of that.

the thing I found probably most enjoyable in this campaign, has been the opportunity to get around to every corner of the state and meet with people that, I wouldn't have otherwise had the opportunity to spend time with.

But a lot of miles on my car, meeting with small groups of people in firehouses next to the Idaho border.

And what I hear over here in eastern Washington is wildfires, wildfires, wildfires, and the need to focus on prevention, the need to manage the public lands in ways that reduce that risk here in eastern Washington.

you know, I think, campaigns are two way streets.

You go out and you share your vision, but you also listen and learn.

And I've been doing a lot of that in Eastern Washington.

you know, if elected, I want to spend a lot of time over here.

We operate by regions.

I think the commissioner needs to get out of headquarters and get into the regional offices.

Continue to build those relationships in the agricultural community.

Those partnerships are so important, as well as in the forestry community over here as well.

So I'm excited to that has spent time here in this part of the state.

Thank you.

Jamie.

I think having an open door policy, being willing to travel is incredibly important, but also being willing to put yourself in the shoes of someone else.

You know, one of the things I value about my time in my last role is sometimes you got to tell people no, sometimes you got to tell your own team.

Now, sometimes you got to tell your own party leadership.

Know in order to meet the needs of the people on the ground.

And that's something I've done.

That's something I will promise to continue to do, irrespective of who the voices are, that tend to come from the right side of the aisle.

And that's something we have to have in this office.

Thank you.

All right.

So we've reached the point in the debate where each of you get to ask one another, one question.

Jamie, you can go first.

You have 30s for your question, and then the same rules apply for the answers.

So the Mount Baker School District is operating in a deficit because of the drop in state forest revenue.

They used to get about $1.2 million a year.

this year, they're getting just over $100 million a year.

And they've said that they cannot do any more cuts without further harm to their students.

23 teachers have been cut, and they have increased class sizes, and they said that delays in our timber sales have real consequences for our students.

My opponent keeps talking about in the future will harvest.

What does he tell these students who are in the classroom today?

The legislature needs to fully fund our public school system.

It's currently underfunded, and the Department of Natural Resources needs to manage our trust lands in ways that sustain that public funding.

My plan would maintain and potentially even grow the funding we have available for those public schools.

I'm very committed to managing our public lands in a way that sustains that commitment to the trust.

The real threat to funding for public schools comes from the repeal of the Climate Commitment Act.

That would take millions and millions out of our public schools, something that my opponent has supported.

I think it's important that we take a holistic view, manage these lands on behalf of the trust for everyone, and support broad funding for our public school system.

Jim, the climate commitment Act will only be repealed if voters repeal it this fall.

And so everybody has their vote on that.

And I trust that you all are smart enough to make your own minds up.

But the reality is these students need this money today.

And this office was set up with this land to provide this money to school construction.

And this teacher or this school director is saying they have cut teachers.

They are increasing class sizes.

That is not how this.

Just imagine giving that authority, not just in one place for the whole state we're talking about.

this is a 2000 person agency.

It's not a legislative office.

This is an executive leadership position.

And being able to tell, advocates on the far right or the far left, no, is critical.

And the reason my opponent has supported pausing, delaying and canceling these sales and Thurston and walk up in Clallam is because radical extremists have said you have to do it.

He needs to tell them no.

I would look that teacher in the eye and explain that I intend to harvest parcels in that taxing district to maintain that funding level, and I have no problem telling people no.

In my career, I've worked as a basketball referee making tough calls.

a nonpartisan group that looks at voting records, looked at my opponent's voting record in Congress and ranked her as a rank and file Republican, meaning someone who always votes with the party 91% of the time.

She even told a magazine, quote, I am no moderate.

We need leaders who will be independent and who will, be willing to create a path forward, working with a diverse group of people.

Thank you for that reply.

Dave, now it's your turn to ask a question.

So thanks.

A few years back, you voted against $100 million for wildlife prevention, a response at the time, every other member of the congressional delegation from Washington and Oregon, including every other Republican, voted for the funding.

You put out a press statement at the time saying you opposed it because it would raise the debt ceiling.

Why were you the only member of the Washington and Oregon federal delegation to prioritize the federal debt ceiling over Washington's public safety?

So I've told you, I've had to tell my own leadership.

Know if anybody here isn't familiar with my congressional record, I'm not afraid to tell my team what I think.

And my problem with this bill was they loved together $100 million in wildfire, wildfire, fighting in with this bill to raise the debt ceiling without any plan to pay it off, folks, for 35 trillion and growing and federal debt.

And I just thought, give us a plan.

Just tell us what you're going to do.

And they dared us.

And I pushed back.

And because I was pushed back within the very next year, we got the president to sign into law not just $100 million in wildfire funding, but $2 billion per year.

We ended the fire borrowing that took money out of civil culture, work that would stop all of the prevention work on our forests, and we put a dedicated fund together to fight wildfires.

In fact, when under the last administration, we had, actually was this current one.

they sidelined Hot shots.

We, I stepped up with a Democrat to make sure that we got their paperwork er, fixed and got them the pay they needed to get them back out onto the front lines.

So I supported billions of dollars in wildland firefighter funding.

And I'll continue to bring those priorities here.

But I won't be manipulated or controlled by anybody's party leadership.

And I won't be manipulated or controlled by any special interest group when it comes to the best interests and the needs of the people of the state of Washington.

Look, folks, this is about our future.

This is about us having both a healthy forest that sequesters carbon and using homemade wood products and supporting jobs and supporting our kids.

There are legacy.

Thank you.

Dave.

I'll reiterate the fact that I think wildfire prevention needs to be our top priority.

we need to invest, not just in forest health, but we also need to be increasing our response capabilities.

The Washington State Council of Firefighters have endorsed this campaign because they know what's at stake, and they know we're the ones we're going to fight to keep this state safe.

every opportunity I had in the legislature and there weren't many, I wasn't on the budget committee.

I voted in favor of funding for forest health and in favor of funding for wildfire prevention.

And I will use my relationships in the legislature, as the next commissioner to continue to fight for these kind of investments.

We do need to work in a bipartisan way.

We need to this is an issue that I don't think is Partizan.

wildfire doesn't care whether it's a Democratic home or Republican home that they're burning down, and it destroys and ravages our landscape and and people's livelihoods and we need to do everything we can to make sure we keep our state safe.

Jamie, look, when Washingtonians see our forest, I want them to experience a legacy of health and prosperity.

I want them to see a vibrant and diverse ecosystem with a diverse array of species that and animals that live in that habitat.

And I want to make sure that the rural communities that depend on that economy are taken care of.

What you're hearing is a difference in our approach.

I do not believe that the status quo is working.

More fires, more carbon emissions, more species listed during my opponent's time as leader of the environmental committee in Olympia.

More species were endangered.

It's not working.

Thank you.

And that brings us to closing statements.

Jamie, you get to go.

First.

You have 90s to your closing statement.

So I truly believe that what we do here and the decision we make with regard to this Commissioner of public lands race, is going to have a pretty big impact on the future we leave our kids.

I want us to have that diverse and abundant and healthy, not just for us, but aquaculture, agriculture, tidelands, ag lands, farmlands across Washington state.

I'm simply asking you, as voters and folks across the state to consider, has what we've been doing worked?

And I would position, you know, right now we know that that by that we've seen increases in numbers of species that are listed.

We've seen increases of pollution and we've seen decreases in healthy forests.

And we've seen and all of that coincides with a desire to pull aside and set aside, land and walk away.

I'm simply saying we use the best and brightest technology innovation that we have to sustainably manage those lands for the future of our state, and it takes a lot of work to do.

But I open my door to anyone, regardless of your party affiliation, to make sure that we get it done.

I'll never forget that the public lands in this state belong to all the people of Washington, whether it's a conservationist or a recreational sportsman.

Hunter Fisher, just a kid who wants to hike, or a tribal member who's concerned about being able to sustain their cultures and their traditions.

Those are things that this commissioner has to take into account.

And I commit to do that.

And I ask for your vote, Jamie, for lands com.

Thank you.

Did.

You know, about 15 years ago, my father unexpectedly lost his vision.

He went blind in one summer a few years back.

I scooped him up in Burien.

We drove all the way up to Seattle, and we jumped into the cold water of Lake Washington and swam a half a mile.

Then we got on a bicycle built for two and pedaled 12.5 miles.

And then with my dad at my side, we ran A5K and my father, at age 75 and blind, successfully completed Seattle's Seafair Triathlon.

And as we came across the finish line that morning, I realized my dad was demonstrating a powerful truth.

And it is this working together, we can overcome any obstacle is your next lands Commissioner.

I will work together with environmentalists and businesses, local governments, the federal government, tribes and all the people of the state of Washington to chart a path forward that protects our clean air, clean water and habitat, improves wildfire prevention and response, and expands recreational opportunities on our state lands, and does it in a way that ensures a healthy generation and a healthy environment for the next generation.

For all the people of the state of Washington.

Thank you for your time.

Okay.

that brings us to the end of our time here.

We appreciate the candidates taking the time to participate in this event.

Thanks to AWB for hosting and to our in-person audience for attending and also to those who are tuning in online.

happy voting this November.