2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Onno Husing here. I'm the guy on the show who made the comment about Keep Portland Weird and the comment about going to a night club. I'm also one of the folks who organized the Rural Oregon Congress.

First, when I brought up the Keep Portland Weird bumperskicker I meant it as a compliment. After all, if you can't poke fun at yourself from time to time then you are probably taking yourself too seriously. I believe I do understand that it is a cultural and political statement. But, am I totally clueless about Portland when I think that there is no attempt at humor in that statement (you know, multiple meanings)? That's why I find it so clever.

Second, of course there is a lot more to Portland than just going to a nightclub. Just like there's a lot more to the Oregon Coast than just walking on the beach. Contrary to what you've concluded from my remark about nightclubs, I think Portland is a great place. I enjoy going there for work and play. I just make a choice not to live in Portland and instead live on the Oregon Coast even though I had the education (I'm a graduate of U of O Law School and have two other graduate degrees) to live and work anywhere.

About my comment about the nightclubs; that stems from my own experience when I was in my 20s. Back then I lived in urban environments and loved it. The priorities of people, some people at least, tend to change as they get older. So, at one stage of your life living in the city is important, at other times, it may be less so. And, for those of us who live in rural communities, the city is always still there and you can take in those great cultural assets as you pointed out.

So, Starkmojo, my friend, please relax. It's all good!

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Jeff, are you aware that the trends in fish stocks are moving upwards, not the other way around? It's an amazing success story most Oregonians have no idea happened. Today, fishing is so much more discriminate than it was 10 years ago because the laws are so strict (all stemming from the landmark 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). I began my career in New England in the 1970s, reasearching commercial fisheries. As a young student, I got to know many fishermen back there and yes, overfishing was an everyone's mind. The fisheries back there even in the 70s were a shadow of what they had been. Years later, after I came out here to live, I got to know dozens and dozens of fishermen. It's night and day from back there. Changes in the fisheries have been made (largely from 1998 onward). We can and most control much more than angling pressure. What we (and shall I say folks in China) put in the skies (and then rains down into our ocean), the water we divert from the rivers (the Klamath and the Sacremento), how or if we industrialize the oceans (wave energy, wind energy, fin fishaquaculture), those are the tougher but oh so much more important things we gotta get our arms around. Chasing down the last angler might feel good, but, it ignores the real threats to the resources we all cherish.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Thanks for this. Maybe I'm confused. There are a number of recreational fishing groups, and, I confess, sometimes I need to consult a playbook. I think the gentlemen that is heading this out of state group (that a lot of my friends in the recreational fishing community have voiced their concern about) that I am talking about is Mr. Loomis. In a recent column by Steve Duin, Loomis basically said commercial interests have played the recreational fishery for fools. Back in 1989 I was a staffer in the Oregon Capitol and I remember how we brought together sport and commercial interests to create the R & E Board and we banded together to fight High Seas Driftnets. Today, we (sport fishermen, commercial fishermen, local government leaders on the Coast) are working to make sure the Klamath River gets the water it needs to beat back diseases that are killing juvenile chinook. It feels great when we do that. If I jumped the gun and caused confusion, I'm really sorry and thanks for seeking a clarification.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I agree with your comments about the RFA (the back east group). But, I have something else to add about them. That group is trying to pit commercial fishermen against recreational fishermen. We all lose under that scenario. Under Oregon law, ODFW/OFWC is directed to provide resources to recreational and commercial fishermen. Proposed near-shore reserves will likely have no impact on sport anglers if they stay involved in the process and work through local groups. I recommend you look to the great leadership of the Depoe Bay Nearshore Action Team (NSAT) in the months ahead for a format/process that brings everyone together.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Sandra, I am pleased to report that based on the hundreds and hundreds of conversations I have had with hundreds of ocean users in Oregon over the last 11 years, they all report they have never seen Oregon's ocean so healthy. Yes, there are ups and downs in salmon runs (something we've always seen even before European settlement). The modernization of our fisheries appears to be working. And, mother ocean (at least the Eastern Pacific) is a highly resiliant ecosystem. I offer this comment not to contradict your points, but, to set your mind at ease because adjustments in our fisheries happened in time. The fishing industry has had to make enormous adjustments. Yes, its been hard on a lot of fishing families and businesses but its happened. Looking ahead, we all need to band together to ensure our ocean is not abused by future industrial uses of Oregon's ocean (in state and federal waters).

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

With respect to my quote in the Oregonian last week cited above,I have this to offer. The quote cut off the other half of my statement. I believe nominations for marine reserves should be vetted before a local group of ocean users and other community people (in an inclusive process) to foster the sharing of information and the building of relationships. I said the same thing on the air today. That way, we can learn from each other (imagine that!). I agree 100% that all Oregonians should have a say in how we manage coastal waters. However, if I felt compelled, as an Oregonian, to have a say about the Willamette River or the Steens Mountains or the Columbia River Gorge, I would feel obliged to show up at a local forum in that region to engage my fellow Oregonians who lived there. That's the Oregon way. We do that with land use, watershed councils, etc. Those processes are grounded locally and no one is excluded from the discussion. That approach has served us well.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context