2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election 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 international 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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Scott,

In a sense, all envirnmental protections have the risk of putting pressure somewhere else. Even if you just look at this issue from a monetary perspective, by limiting harvest in our state forests we maintain budget shortfalls for rural counties that have to be made up in other ways.

This bill is really about the Tillamook. The Northwest corner of the state has a large concentration of state forest land, basically held in trust by the state to fund Tillamook & Clatsop counties. Their schools and county services rely on these funds.

State foresters have determined that the sustainable yield of timber from the forest is about 150 million board feet. But the county commissioners have used their political strength to push for higher harvests every year. Josi thinks 300 million board feet is the right number. To your question, there is no other forest that can make up the difference for the counties. If they get less timber, then they get less money.

So, if forests are managed sustainably at the 150 million board feet level, the counties will have to acquire other means of funding to maintain revenue and basic services. It's a system that forces rural counties to over exploit their natural resources in order to maintain quality of life. It made a lot of sense when the county populations were smaller, but they have outgrown the system.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

This bill (HB3072) is a full frontal attack on Oregon's agreed upon process for managing state forests. The back-story: the bill was unleashed by rural county commissioners in retaliation for the Department of Forestry's recommendation last fall to reduce cutting. State foresters' own models clearly showed that the Tillamook was being overharvested, so last fall they suggested a slight reduction in harvest. Tim Josi and others decided to enlist politicians to rewrite the statute.

The bottom line: county commissioners "believe" the forest can handle an annual harvest of 300 million board feet. Our state foresters' best science suggests that the cap should be at 150 million. Should we trust the foresters who are interested in sustainability, or should we trust county politicians who are looking for short-term relief from today's economic pressures?

The root of the problem is that Oregon's rural counties have outgrown their funding structure. In order to sustain schools and basic services, counties must push the envelope on timber harvest, thereby risking long-term environmental health to maintain quality of life expectations. Until Oregonians provide rural counties with a new model for funding, there will always be pressure to overharvest.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context