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

When it comes to our public lands, subsidized logging and road-building is a net-money loser.  Recreation in our National Forests generates 5 times more revenue than logging (I imagine the numbers are similar for BLM lands).

We’ve got lots of them, but no one visits our state or buys hiking boots to hike the clearcuts.

In any case, the biggest problem the industry has right now is a lack of demand.  Increasing supply would be the worst thing you could do!

This isn’t about killing jobs.  This is about stopping an illegal and destructive plan before it took effect.

The logging industry loves to use words like “green” and “sustainable”.  They use environmental rhetoric to justify cutting as many of the biggest trees they possibly can.  I have no doubt there are plenty of loggers who care about the environment.  It’s their bosses that I don’t trust (and sadly, many of the forest managers who listen to them). 

You can’t stop global warming, protect forests, wildlife, and water and increase timber harvests by the amount WOPR proposed – that’s why it was illegal.

We need to focus on logging that is sustainable – not just in rhetoric, but actually sustainable and ecologically sound.  For that, I don’t trust anyone with the ear of the timber bosses.

And PS -- "regeneration harvest" is Orwellian for clearcut

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

This is the first killing of livestock by wolves in 75 years (and in the 10 years since they have returned).

In response, OCA has proposed legislation that calls wolves a game species.  Is that really appropriate when there are less than 10 in the state?

posted 4 years ago
view in context

Oregon already has a wolf management plan that was already a big compromise by wolf advocates and other stakeholders.  To gut it and replace it without even giving it a chance to work the first time wolves kill a couple of sheep is the same knee-jerk "logic" that led us to kill every last wolf in the state in 1946.

There are less than 10 wolves in the state and the first two were shot by poachers.  The last thing we need to do is make it easier and legal for wolf haters to kill this very endangered species!

Here's the Oregonian's take.

While wolves are endangered, ranchers will be compensated.  Once we have a viable population, the plan allows them to be "managed" including with lethal controls.

Why is OCA crying wolf?  OCA's proposed legislation calls wolves a game species.  Is that really appropriate when there are less than 10 in the state?

posted 4 years ago
view in context