Timberrrr! Legislators are at it again.

By Mari Anne Gest of Portland, Oregon, who describes herself as a "homegrown progressive advocate that wants to keep Blue Oregon green" She is the director of Oregon legislative affairs for the Wild Salmon Center and was on staff for the Tillamook 50/50 campaign in 2004.

ChainsawI posted a guest column on June 2, regarding a new scientific analysis released by the Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF) that suggests that pressure from the 2003 Legislature in the form of a budget note, to boost logging in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests to 250 million board feet, prompted cutting at a level of 30% higher than the forests can sustain and still protect wildlife.

Despite this new scientific evidence which came as a result of a field study, the Oregon Legislature is at it again. Two budget notes are attached to the ODF budget to increase harvest levels in our state forests beyond what is scientifically determined to be sustainable.

The harvest levels set by the Legislative budget notes are not sustainable and will cause long-term fiscal problems for both the state and the counties. The budget notes ignore new scientific evidence that show that current levels of timber harvests in our state forests cannot be sustained without sacrificing wildlife habitat.

In the conservative Salem Statesman Journal, these legislative budget notes made the "Loser" column July 15, 2005:

"Legislators seem to think that trees will grow faster just because Oregon needs cash and jobs. Lawmakers should let state foresters do their work based on sound timber-management principles."

We prefer scientific principles but agree that the budget notes are a loser.

The arguments for increased logging usually fall along the line of increased jobs and revenue. But the truth is in the numbers. ODF increased logging by one third yet those thousand of new jobs failed to materialize. The numbers are not in yet but I hazard to guess that no new jobs were created. Increased harvest levels creating new jobs is a perception that does not reflect reality.

In the 2003 Legislative session in discussion over doubling timber harvests in the Tillamook and Clatsop, Howard Sohn, former Chair of the Board of Forestry and timber company owner said:

'While higher state land harvests may yield some benefit to manufacturer and employment in the short run, the effect will not be large. In addition, too aggressive a harvest level will merely steal from the future.'

Dr. Sessions (whose model is used to predict harvest levels on state forestlands) said that harvesting at the high end level could mean decades of decline.

Howard Sohn also pointed out that 'Efficiencies and excess capacity will absorb most of the increase volume, without substantial additional employment.'

In an interview with Hampton Affiliates by the Associated Press, the big Portland based lumber producer who harvests on state forest lands, they point out that increased harvesting does not equate to more jobs.

'Hampton, which expects to rank among the top five U.S. producers for the year, accomplished the 10 percent annual production boost with about the same number of employees: 1,600.' 'That's the unfortunate part of being more efficient,' Steven Zika, Chief Executive for Hampton said. 'Some of the efficiency makes the mills run better, but some of it eliminates jobs.'

Though timber production remains an important part of Oregon's economy (jobs in the timber and wood products industry make up less than 3% of Oregon's job market.) it is being outpaced by 'livability issues' that bring new businesses and educated workers to Oregon and a growing recreational and tourism industry.

Hans Radtke, Oregon economist says:

'Non-market values from a standing forest include livability considerations, and livability is becoming more important as the Pacific NW economies mature.'

Legislators are ignoring science and the law by pushing to increase timber harvests. Oregon law requires the State Forests to be managed for the Greatest Permanent Value of its citizens and that includes protecting our wild salmon populations, water quality and recreational opportunities as well as timber harvests.

Legislators crying timberrrr should put down their chainsaws, remove the budget notes in SB 5612 and HB 5160, and work to create long-term jobs and revenue that is sustainable.

I personally think that any increase in logging proposed by the Legislature should tie a specific number of new family wage jobs to increased logging proposals. I wonder what the timber barons would say then?

  • (Show?)

    And from an action alert from Mari Anne last week (thanks for your hard work to protect our state forest, Mari Anne!), here's who to contac: spread the word, save the trees!

    Legislative budget notes to increase logging is a “loser”.

    As previously reported, the ODF budget note from 2003 drove logging to unsustainable levels! Preliminary results from a recent ODF study shows that current logging levels (223 mbf) are 20 to 30% more than forests can sustain if they are to protect salmon, wildlife and other species.

    Despite the evidence, two budget notes remain attached to the Oregon Dept. of Forestry's (ODF) budget asking ODF to increase harvest levels beyond what is scientifically determined to be sustainable in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. The Senate and House have both passed ODF budgets with notes attached. There is one more chance to eliminate these budget notes as the House and Senate work on final budgets.

    In the Statesman Journal “Winners and losers” opinion piece July 15, 2005 the Statesman Journal called the legislative action a “Loser.” “Legislators seem to think that trees will grow faster just because Oregon needs cash and jobs. The state Senate passed a measure that urges the Department of Forestry to boost logging to help the economy. Lawmakers should let state foresters do their work based on sound timber-management principles.” We prefer sound science but what the heck – either way the budget notes defy logic and should be rejected.

    We reject the use of Legislative budget notes based on the following:

    <h1>1. Budget notes are being used by the Budget Committee to set state policy which is unconstitutional according to Legislative Counsel. And ODF budget notes received no public hearing.</h1> <h1>2. The harvest levels set by the budget notes are not sustainable and will cause long-term fiscal problems for both the state and the counties.</h1> <h1>3. The budget notes ignore new scientific evidence that show that current levels of timber harvests in our state forests (223 mbf to 250 mbf) cannot be sustained without sacrificing wildlife habitat.</h1>

    During this next budget period, logging levels need to be reduced to sustain and protect future logging and revenue flows while protecting wildlife. But lead budget negotiators in the House appear locked in to this course of action and Senate leadership is wavering, conflicted by competing budget priorities. In other words, the Senate Leadership may feel it is necessary to trade the forests for more money for education and health care.

    Action Needed: Please write and call Senator Leadership and ask them to remove ODF budget notes using the above mentioned arguments! Please let us know if you have contacted your legislator – [email protected] Thanks Key Senate Leadership to contact:

    Sen. Kurt Schrader (Chair of Budget Committee – D-Canby) [email protected] 503-986-1720 Sen. Alan Bates (D-Ashland) [email protected] 503-986-1703

    Sen. Margaret Carter (D-Portland) [email protected] 503-986-1722

    Sen. Kate Brown (Senate Majority Leader, D-Portland) - [email protected] 503-986-1700

    Sen. President Peter Courtney (D- Marion Co.) [email protected] 503-986-1600

    Key House Leadership to contact: Rep. Susan Morgan (R-Roseburg) [email protected] 503-986-1402

    Rep. Wayne Scott (R-Oregon City) [email protected] 503-986-1400

    House Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) [email protected] 503-986-1200

    Rep. Jeff Merkley (D- Multnomah Co.) [email protected] 503-986-1900

    Or call toll free 1-800-332-2313 to contact your legislator

  • (Show?)

    Wow Mari Anne,

    I'm with you in your quest for reasoned arguments and thoughtful conclusions. I fully agree that the current Republican position is a brain dead and short sighted take on responsible stewardship that, if implemented could only lead to bad results in the coming decades.

    Just think how much more credibility you'd have if you had not pushed measure 34. Had that been the case, you'd now be speaking from the moral high ground.

  • juggler (unverified)
    (Show?)

    File this one under two wrongs don't make a right. Mary Anne wants some arbitrary non-scientific 50% non-harvest model and the House wants some arbitrary non-scientific too much harvest model....

    Meanwhile, the people most impacted by the harvesting yo-yo are the counties who made the now questionable decision to give the forests to the state in the first place.

    Had Measure 34 passed, the counties would have sued, probably successfully, to get the land back and then we wouldn't even have the state forests.

    Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that either side (Mary Anne & Friends or the Legislature) really represents a large portion of Oregonians...who obviously do think we can have trees AND jobs. The problem is people that want too much of one or the other.

guest column

connect with blueoregon