2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college 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 internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media 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 president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Salmon need healthy oceans and healthy streams. Healthy streams need healthy watershed. In Oregon the rules governing logging on state and private lands are spelled out in the Forest Practices Act. Under this act it is legal to log within 20 feet of a large, fish bearing stream, even on steep slopes. Many fish experts say the margin should optimally be 150 ft, especially with steep slopes. It is time for us to reevaluate our priorities, and for our citizens and our local environmental organizations to work to get the Forest Practices Act rewritten to reflect our need to protect our salmon and optimize our forest buffer against global warming. We need to stop railing at the logging companies and direct our energy to the regulations which make logging up to 20 feet from a large, fish bearing stream legal.
The Forest Practices Act in theory should change with changing needs and circumstances. Things were much worse before we had the Forest Practices Act to provide some protection and guidance. The Oregon Board of Forestry is charged with monitoring the need for change. So, why aren?t our local environmental organizations raising questions about the Forest Practices Act? Why have I never been asked to sign a petition to change the Forest Practices Act so our streams and salmon are better protected? Why have I not heard any candidate for state office talk about changes needed to the Forest Practices Act? Oregon may not be able to control what the logging industry can do on Federal lands, but we can control what is permitted on our state and private land. I live in a rural area, and have watched multiple bouts of logging down to 20ft from the largest fish bearing streams that feed into the Sandy River. It is happening every day on a large scale. We need to stop accepting the ?no significant impact? used to justify these practices, and demand either change or solid data to show that our timber harvesting practices are not a significant factor in the decline of the salmon.
In the long run we need to seek a win-win solution between our logging industry and our environmental priorities. We need to change the way we harvest our forests before it is too late for the salmon. Although there are undoubtedly many factors contributing to the decline of the salmon, this is one we Oregonians have been ignoring too long.

ADD: The Forest Practices Act is complicated, has helped protect our forests compared to when we had no rules, and I have over simplified it due to the need for brevity. But the bottom line is that the salmon are threatened and global warming is changing our priorities in maintenance of our forests, and it is time to bring the Forest Practices Act in line with these new priorities.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

testing

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context