Praised and resented as an environmental attorney, Seattle's Peter Goldman donates his time to watchdog private timber companies.

Q: You don't have to work, do you?

A: Inheritances and investments have given me the opportunity to be financially independent, so I can focus exclusively on philanthropy, community service and raising our three kids. But we've worked every day of our lives.

Q: You direct and substantially fund the Washington Forest Law Center in downtown Seattle?

A: Yes. I went to law school because I believe the law promotes social change. I spent the first 10 years of my career working as a deputy (and later a senior deputy) for King County prosecuting attorney Norm Maleng. Now, I practice public-interest environmental law. We also have a foundation that gives away about $1 million a year, 70 percent of it to environmental causes.

Q: Do we really need another environmental lawyer?

A: The fight for environmental protection needs as many lawyers as possible, particularly free ones!

Q: Didn't the spotted-owl wars settle the logging issue?

A: No way. What we learned from the owl wars in the 1980s was that heavy industrial logging was taking a toll on old growth-dependent species, like the owl. Twenty years later, the owl and salmon remain in steep decline. The battle has broadened from public to private lands as well.

Q: Are more regulations and lawsuits really the way to get there?

A: Unfortunately, the rules for logging on private land do not scientifically protect wildlife and fish. To compel timber companies to protect the environment, they need to believe they'll be sued. Then other groups, like land trusts and certified forestry, work with them to both harvest trees and protect the environment. It's a carrot-and-stick approach.

Q: What's wrong with the state's logging rules?

A: Washington reviews each logging permit separately. No one looks at location or the cumulative impacts of multiple logging permits. The industry says one clear-cut plus one clear-cut plus one clear-cut equals one clear-cut. We say no, it equals three.

Q: Give me an example of where a lawsuit helped.

A: Lawsuits don't permanently protect land, but they do provide protection until things get on the right track. Plum Creek Timber Co. proposed extensive logging in the central Cascades around 1996. Our lawsuits helped make Plum Creek decide to sell and exchange its lands to the federal government. Several thousand acres next to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area were saved.

Q: Do you have some market-driven ideas?

A: To log land responsibly yields a return of 8 or 9 percent. To do it irresponsibly delivers 12 or 13 percent. Investors are demanding that 12 or 13 percent. Our challenge is to find a way to get the market to help us make up that difference. We can't thrust all the cost on landowners, particularly small ones.

Q: Aren't you just a wealthy guy taking logging jobs from the working poor?