Blaming the Owl
Russell Sadler
One of the reasons Congress now seeks to "revise" the Endangered Species Act is a claim that the listing of the Northern Spotted owl resulted in devastating loses of wages and jobs in the Northwest timber industry. Oregon's 2nd District Congressman Greg Walden is a cosponsor -- and he should know better.
This claim is a deliberately created fiction. As the late sociologist and New York Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said famously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Consider:
Between 1979 and 1989, the Northwest Douglas fir region -- Western Oregon, Western Washington and Northern California -- lost more than 25 percent of its mills, more than 34 percent of its workforce and more than 20 percent of its wages.
Yet in 1989 alone, the remaining Northwest mills produced more lumber and plywood than the entire industry had at any time since 1959 -- the peak year of the post-World War II housing boom. The spotted owl injunctions limiting logging in Northwest federal forests were not imposed until the early 1990s -- after the major mill closures and job losses of the 1980s.
Now, if the spotted owl was not responsible for the mill closures and job losses of the 1980s, what was responsible?
Automation.
In 1979 it took 4.5 workers to mill one million board feet of lumber.
By 1989 it took just two workers to mill the same one million board feet.
Economists called it increased efficiency. Mill owners called it increased productivity. Mill workers called it unemployment. Merchants in mill towns called it bankruptcy.
Some experienced observers argue persuasively that the employment per unit of output in the wood products industry has remained fairly stable for the last 40 or 50 years. Increased employment in sales and distribution of wood products replaced jobs lost in the woods and mills. But most of the sales and distribution jobs are in Seattle, Tacoma, Portland and Eugene. That is cold comfort in Roseburg, Powers, Coos Bay, Astoria and Newport.
There was one other seminal event that closed many mills. The Northwest ran out of the old-growth timber needed to maintain historic levels of production and employment. By the mid-1980s private timber land owners in the region had liquidated their old-growth holdings. Mills that depended on federal timber expected to be able to do the same thing in the national forests. But public opinion changed.
Public awareness of the environment and the connected nature of ecosystems, begun by Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" in the early 1960s, raised questions about the apparent policy of turning the national forests into national tree farms. The Clinton administration's Northwest Forest Plan in the early 1990s limited the logging on the remaining five percent remnant of the region's original old growth. That is the remnant the Bush administration is struggling to return to the market to pay back its campaign contributors.
It is a futile gesture.
Most of the region's remaining mills have now been adapted to processing the smaller 60-year-old trees from privately owned second-growth forests that currently dominate the timber supply. The real purpose of putting more publicly subsidized federal timber on the market to drive down the price of private timber, allowing marginal mills to stay in business a little longer.
Trees are, of course, a renewable resource. But 400-year-old trees are not renewable in our lifetimes. The Northwest timber industry spent the last 50 years cutting 400-year-old trees with eight generations of wealth in the wood. There was plenty of money to go around.
Now the region's timber industry is dependent on 60-year-old trees with one generation of wealth in the wood. There is less money to go around. That means more automation, fewer workers and lower wages. Not even the Bush administration with its self-proclaimed pipeline to the Almighty can bring back a sufficient supply of 400-year-old trees to restore historic levels of production and employment.
The spotted owl is simply an indicator species. It's health -- or lack of it -- tells us about the condition of the habitat it depends on. The spotted owl was telling us that it was losing the same habitat the old-growth dependent timber industry -- its mill workers, mill owners, their families -- also depended upon. We didn't listen. We blamed the owl instead. Only when the mills closed because nearly all the old growth had been logged off did we realize the owl had been warning the humans who also depended on the dwindling old growth forest.
There may be some reasons for revising the Endangered Species Act. The spotted owl is not one of them.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 27, '05
"This claim is a deliberately created fiction."
Since when have facts mattered in politics?
If we as Democrats continue to act as if we can persuade those that don't already agree with us with facts, we are living in an "unreal" world.
If you have to have facts, well then, here is one to consider - Nearly everyone displaced from a timber job, especially here in Waldon's District, believes it was due to a combination of environmental restraints including the famous Spotted Owl.
We as Democrats cannot sit back, let these beliefs lie for years and decades, and then when a bill is proposed come to the forefront with our late "facts". It is too late, too little, and not believable by those people that vote for Walden. Walden will be hailed as a hero by 70% of those in this District, as he has tapped into a "frame" developed over time, that we have not responded to in a meaningful manner.
Furthermore, even if the majority of voters in this District could be turned around by the "facts", these facts aren't what is going to do it. To fight this in the Second Congressional District, these are the facts we have to have on our side - (Do we?)
We have to guarantee that if a job is lost to an enviromental rule, law, or regulation; that a job of equal pay and benefits will replace it in the community where it was lost, with new job training locally available for this transition. (Did we?)
We have to guarantee that if an environmental rule, law, or regulation has the effect of reducing governmental funding for services at at State or County level; that those funds will be replaced and local services such as education, health care, mental health, senior services, transportation, etc. will be held harmless and such support will remain. (Did we?)
We have to guarantee that if an environmental rule, law, or regulation has the effect of an incremental loss of personal property right or property value that the person(s) losing said right or value will be made whole and their loss reimbused by the governmental body causing said loss. (Did we?)
The answer to all three questions is that we did not. So, Walden's proposal is the natural consequence of a failure of the Democratic Party to due what by natural rights and history it should have done - The Democratic Party should have stood up for the "little guy". It should have insured no harm to families and wage earners. It should have preserved services. The "fact" that the Democratic Party failed in this regard is the basis for the support in this District for Walden.
So, it isn't about the "environment" is it? Its about our own failures as Democrats to be willing to pay the real price.
In my humble Second District/Central Oregon perspective.
Feb 27, '05
When you didn't commit the crime, why should you confess to it?
The Democrats didn't log the forests faster than it grows. The Democrats didn't invent automation that put people out of work. Democrats didn't create The Endangered Species Act one day in order to protect some owls. Just because many folks in the 2nd district think it, doesn't make it any more true.
The logging town economies were destroyed by robber baron profiteering. Now there are not many trees left to cut. It's time to stop crying in our beer and look for ways to solve the problem in front of our faces because the bottom line is that the heydays of timber are over.
If you want to capture the district from Walden, you won't be able to do it without a policy that will work. Giving away the last dozen trees will not work. That fact is irrefutable.
This tripe about guaranteeing that nobody's toes will ever be stepped on by environmental necessities is apologist demagoguery or political hackery, but I can't tell which.
Feb 27, '05
Interesting comments. I haven't fact checked them, but they make sense and fit with my memory. Your slams on Bush damaged your arguments though. Stick with the topic at hand without the idological slams and your argument will come through much stronger.
Feb 27, '05
"When you didn't commit the crime, why should you confess to it?"
Our failure wasn't a "crime" - it was failing to address the consequences of the "crime".
"The Democrats didn't log the forests faster than it grows. The Democrats didn't invent automation that put people out of work. Democrats didn't create The Endangered Species Act one day in order to protect some owls. Just because many folks in the 2nd district think it, doesn't make it any more true."
True, true - which is why I said "facts" don't matter. Our failure has to do what Democrats should be doing - protecting the people affected by automation, and environmental displacement. We have had an excellent opportunity for years. The Republicans have been the party of the Robber Baron, the party of the corporations. We could be the party of the people - of the voters. But no, we have left that excellent opportunity lying on the table barely used.
"The logging town economies were destroyed by robber baron profiteering. Now there are not many trees left to cut. It's time to stop crying in our beer and look for ways to solve the problem in front of our faces because the bottom line is that the heydays of timber are over."
First off, the "logging town economies" are not completely destroyed. There is still a lumber industry, and secondary wood products is big business. In any case, I wasn't crying in my beer over the lost heyday of timber - I lament the fact that the Democratic Party has let the people of rural Oregon and elsewhere come to believe that we are the "problem" and not the "solution" to the issues faced due to environmental regulations and laws.
The perception that environmentalism has been done on the backs of the rural working people is a REAL perception. Saying it isn't so, screaming it isn't so, spouting facts and figures that it isn't so - isn't going to change that perception. We have to take a new look at this. The perception is based in fear - the fear of loss of dignity due to loss of income, the fear of the breakup of families over economic issues, the fear of having to leave home to go to some strange place to find work, and the reality of seeing these things you fear happen to your neighbors. We have to STOP talking about the environmental issues of rural Oregon as only a one-way discussion of facts, look at effects, and deal with the effects. The political party that deals with the effects on the lives of the people here in rural Oregon will EARN the gratitude and votes of the people here.
So back to my points - We as Democrats have failed to provide economic security, stable local governmental funding for services, and protection of property rights and property value in light of environmental regulations and laws. When we do what Democrats do - protect the people - we will earn the respect of rural voters.
SteveL - please read Lakoff. We have to start reframing issues to be winable.
Feb 27, '05
Steve,
I'm all for helping to mitigate the negative effects of government regulation. There are limits, though, to what is economically doable. If employment in an area is due to unsustainable resource extraction, whether that is timber, fresh water, or sometning else, it may not be possible to replace lost jobs without very high subsidies. Sometimes people need to move in order to find work. This happens whether one lives in an urban or rural area.
I'm all for effective framing of issues and admit that D's have faltered at this too much, but framing and instituting a timbertown preservation program are not the same thing. Job training and placement aid, sure. But inventing jobs where they make no sense is the kind of silly social engineering that D's are criticized for in another well sold R issue frame.
Feb 28, '05
Have any of you read the book Tree Huggers by Kathie Durbin? Copyright 1996. It was suggested to me because I knew some people who'd been involved in these issues for years and couldn't figure out all the background they were talking about. Great background reading so you recognize names involved in all sides of the debate.
Not a new issue by any means--I recall a panel discussion on this topic with a wide variety of views at Willamette Univ. in maybe 1990.
Lots of people who never worked in the woods are out of work. Whether one works for a bank, a timber company, or something totally different like a household products company, anyone can get the "don't go to work tomorrow" phone call, "we're laying off everyone in your division" announcement, or the written layoff notice.
As I recall, there was a time when Bend was just timber mills, but by the time the last timber mill closed Bend had diversified. Cannery Row in Monterey once was actually that--fish canneries. Now it is tourism incl. the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Times change and communities must change with them. A college friend lived in a town where I-5 when it was built bypassed a major restaurant which was the heart of the community. The restaurant ended up being given moving assistance so they could move out by the freeway. Things like that happen all the time, in all sorts of places. Klamath basin farmers fight the fishing industry over water. Those sorts of battles are historic. And as far as environmental regulations go, ask someone who has a clear fishing stream if they would like regulators to keep it that way or if it would be OK for mining or manufacturing to take place upstream to "produce jobs". Some years ago that was an issue in the Santiam Canyon, and one of the greatest advocates of clean water was a Republican with a fishing stream on his property. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. If you think environmental laws are a recent invention, read the history of 100 years ago and you will see the issues haven't changed that much, just the name "environmental" is recent.
Feb 28, '05
There used to be the concept of a sustainable yield. This is independent of the labor productivity rate on the added value from milling. The harvest had exceeded the rate which would have been sustainable.
The price of lumber would go down if the feds stopped offering assistance to home buyers who want to buy over-sized homes and then have the mortgages traded in the secondary mortgage market.
Cap FHA loan assistance, and the like, at pehaps 100K. The offer of public assistance on big loans, for people who could buy a basic home in five years time from disposable after-tax income, is not needed by the home buyer. It is needed by the folks that want larger mortgage-backed investment opportunities (for their carry-trades using Alan Greenspan money) and by local governments that want to raise their property tax base, even if it is unsustainable.
Save the forest by capping the federal loan assistance for big homes, and ending the investment-market distortion of tax deductions on mortgage debt.
The Owl? What Owl? That has always been irrelevant, except as a good PR distraction by all sides.
Lower lumber prices will have a positive effect on the so-called effort to make housing affordable to the poor. Cut back on the stimulated demand.
8:20 a.m.
Feb 28, '05
So back to my points - We as Democrats have failed to provide economic security, stable local governmental funding for services, and protection of property rights and property value in light of environmental regulations and laws. When we do what Democrats do - protect the people - we will earn the respect of rural voters.
SteveL - please read Lakoff. We have to start reframing issues to be winable.
I'm way in with Steve B here. The environmental movement pissed away the chance to keep blue collar timber industry workers in the democratic party fold.
There was and is a real arrogance that comes from the Blue side toward the blue collar Red voters. Our current frame looks something like this: "Too bad you rubes are dinosaurs headed for extinction. It's your own fault and trust us to train your kids to serve lattes to eco tourists." This will never get us back into our traditional role as the champions of the working class. Some of the prominent Portland progressive groups have gone out into what they imagine to be the rural areas, allegedly to "listen and learn". Laudable, but I'd be interested to hear what they have "learned" from their country cousins in downtown Hood River and Bend.
As Steve B also pointed out, the wood products industry is not yet dead and if Enviros want to gain street cred in Mill City, Oak Ridge, Toledo, and Burns, they could start by acknowledging that there are still trees on public land that are available for harvest and processing into end use products. They should be ready to back legislation that would help to accomplish this.
It will take a change in perspective from the Left and a sustained demonstration of committment on the part of Enviros to rural livable wage jobs.
Feb 28, '05
The fact is that there was a 4 billion board foot reduction in potential sustained yield harvest resulting from the spotted owl listing, and other late-successional forest dependent species. This equates to approximately 40,000 jobs, which may not be significant in a three-state area, but was very significant in certain communities. The automation in the 80's occurred because the industry was already starting the shift to small logs. Old growth is much less amenable to automation. The trees have to be hand felled. They are generally sawn for grade by a skilled human being at the headrig, instead of a computer.
Feb 28, '05
If Pat and Steve R are suggesting in the last 2 posts that D's support harvesting the remaining old growth on public land, I will disagree. There is nothing sustainable in cutting a forest in 50 year rotation that takes 400 years to develop.
There is lots of small trees that can use thinning, but any thinning project seems to become an excuse for taking big trees, just the ones that should be left standing if we want to return to healthy forests. I admit that environmental issues have not been framed well, but the concept that we have not cut enough large trees is complete bullshit.
I keep hearing about modern sustainable forestry methods, but what the industry and its captured regulators in the forestry and ag agencies want to do on the ground never looks like sustainability to me. Maybe they are talking about sustaining the present degradated state, while, silly me, I am thinking about sustaining forests in a healthy state for the benifits that brings to ecosystems, water quality, and soil protection.
10:18 a.m.
Feb 28, '05
Steve,
As Russell has so eloquently demonstrated, environmental rules and laws had little to do with job losses in rural timber dependent communities. So why should environmentalists and Democrats propose to nevertheless accept the blame for those job losses? What about when environmental rules and laws create job gains? What about when environmental rules and laws protect people from themselves and avoid the fight over who is going to catch the last fish, harvest the last old growth tree, or overgraze the land?
Natural resource based industries are inherently boom and bust cyclical industries. Environmental laws benefit people and the economy by minimizing the bust. The cost is that perhaps the boom doesn't boom so high or last so long maybe. It's like when the Fed raises interest rates when the economy overheats. Sure, it would be better in the short run if interest rates stayed low. But it is better to raise rates and allow the economy to cool off and stay on a more even keel in order to avoid the bust of recessions. Rural people who complain about environmental laws are like people who always want ever lower interest rates and think they should never go up, no contraints on the economy at all. What you would get from that would be a wild, radical boom and bust cyclical economy.
Russell doesn't present any new information here. Enviros were saying automation and the lack of any remaining old growth timber were the real cause of job losses all along. People in rural communities preferred to believe the timber companies, who blamed the owl and environmentalists, instead.
10:22 a.m.
Feb 28, '05
Tom writes <<< I am thinking about sustaining forests in a healthy state for the benifits that brings to ecosystems, water quality, and soil protection.<<<<
And jobs. That can't be emphasized enough, and needs to be emphasized more.
Real sustainable forest management practices are a positive for the economy, and for the long-term health of the forest industry, and its workers.
Frank Dufay
10:55 a.m.
Feb 28, '05
Ron,
Even at the hieght of federal timber production, federal timber never contributed more than 15-25% of all timber sold in the US. Now its contribution is only in the low single digits, and still there is a glut of wood on the market from Canada and private sources.
Federal Timber Harvests: Implications for U.S. Timber Supply
Federal land timber production was never really about having to log the National Forests in order for people to build homes or to make them affordable. That's another long standing myth. Federal timber sales have always been about providing timber to a few rural communities and their local mill in order to create jobs in that community. That's it.
Mill Closures: Rational but Painful Adjustments to Low Prices and Excess Supply
12:32 p.m.
Feb 28, '05
It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Tom seems to be arguing that the only correct way to approach the ecosystem is to halt all logging and all public access to publicly owned forests for the next 400 years.
There is no "natural" eco system in light of the advent of humans on the scene. In the case of the north american continent, humans have been interfering in the "natural order" for 15 to 20 thousand years. Admittedly, the industrial revolution and the biblical mindset (from Genesis 1: 26-29) of the most recent invaders from northern Europe, has hastened the deforestation process.
That said, we are all drawing artificial lines in the pine needles, extractionist and preservationist alike. I don't automatically subscribe to any one notion of what constitutes at "healthy" ecosystem.
Again, if you clear cut the old growth Ponderosa pine on the slopes of Black Butte, it will indeed take centuries of thinning, fires, and pest management to get it back to where it is now.
If you clearcut a hillside of alder southeast of Coos Bay, the negative effects of your cutting will be minimal by comparison.
It's also true that you can theoretically acquire all of the fiber and structural variations currently provided by wood products from other sources. Tom of course, being in the business of fine cabinetry, would need some retraining, and houses might cost 20 to 50 percent more than they do currently. Or we could lock up our forests and then large scale extraction would move offshore to places like Chile, Indonesia, and Siberia..............Oh wait, this really bad deal for Mother Earth is already taking place........nevermind.
Feb 28, '05
Steve Buckucknum:
We are in complete agreement here. Yet, conservationists are not the problem, and framing them as such is to admit defeat.
Maybe I missed something in your origional post because it looked to me like you were suggesting policy positions that make no sense. There is no justification for expecting revenues without risk. The only framing I recognized in your comment were conservative frames intended to justify repealing the EPAct, state land use laws, etc. Honestly, I'm still not sure what your recommended frame is, because those are not consistent with the context of your other comments.
The way we talk about natural resource policy is important, but better framing is only part of the solution. As Tom Civiletti said very well above, there are real limits to what Dems can promise. That is the root of my objection to your origional comments, because from my perspective your position promised more than we could deliver. Again I will mention that this is probably driven by me not understanding exactly where you are going with your comments.
Steve Funk:
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. This claim does not stand up by itself. Automation and a century of over-harvesting all pointed to this bust.Secondly, it seems irrelevant anyway. The drop-off in harvests was inevitable. The fact that 8% of our indigenous forests are off limits does not change the fact that the forests are finite, and harvests were chewing through banked resources faster than they could be replaced.
Furthermore, the EPAct was on the books. It's impact should have been anticipated by a cautious industry. The blame does not belong with the EPAct. When approaching a wall at high speed, the sudden deceleration is what hurts, not the precise placement of the wall. In this case the EPA moved that wall a few years closer. The alternative is that we would have hit the other wall that sits right behind it.
We are still searching for a frame for this, but progressives are just learning how this works and it will take some time to develop skills and experience to contrast the conservative think tanks. And framing does not obviate the need for real policy as well, and right now it will be quite difficult to fund the sort of policies that I think we need. The challenge is large, and we are fighting political entropy on the way.
Feb 28, '05
Pat,
I'm not suggesting leaving all forests alone for 400 years. I am saying that the present state of federal forests is extremely degraded, and that rebuilding healthy forests should be the first priority now. We don't need 100% old growth forests, but we should aim for more than the miniscule amount now left.
Certainly different climates soils, slopes require different management. Of course, that alder covered Coast Range slope receives a lot of rainfall, is open to serious erosion, and is above an andromonous fish bearing stream. You sure you want to clearcut it?
I'm willing to adjust my use of forest products for environmental reasons. If that means bamboo cabinets, alright then. If it means rebuilding existing pieces, alright then. If it means building furniture of metal instead of wood, I'll sell my client list to you.
US houses can easily be 25% smaller. There are many non-wood and sustainable wood alternative building materials.
4:38 p.m.
Feb 28, '05
Steve Bucknum makes the general point that we're losing the east side because of framing, but one point of Lakoff's book was that conservative Orwellian type framing ie "Healthy Forest Initiative" is usually a sign of political weakness and vulnerablility on that particular issue. I think even Frank Luntz would basically acknowledge that many Rs are fundamentally mispositioned on enviro issues.
Also, I think the idea that Dems haven't tried to talk about timber worker issues in the second CD is not really accurate. Sure, it was a while ago, but Sue Kupillas' Congressional campaign message basically boiled down to this core message: the Republicans are for timber companies; I'm for timber workers. God knows she didn't run as an enviro.
In the end, the vote total wasn't significantly different from other more liberal candidates' performances. And this was a loss to Wes Cooley, too (OUCH!).
<hr/>Back to Russell's original post, automation is obviously a major issue, but another factor that hasn't really come up here is logging exports, which sends more value-added jobs overseas. I remember being told by a timber worker about management letting a whole lot of folks go, then placing a picture of a spotted owl in the breakroom saying that this is why their job were being axed.
By the next day, workers replaced it with a picture of a cargo ship loaded up with old growth logs.
Feb 28, '05
This has been an interesting discussion. Way to many points to respond to individually.
I find, maybe because I'm here in Central Oregon, viewing Prineville out my front window, that the stereotypes are the most interesting point of this.
Stereotype: Timber Town. A "timber town" means a town solely dependent upon timber for its income and way of life. There never really were that many true timber towns. Kinzua was one, its gone. There were some little stops on the Siuslaw River where my great-aunts used to teach, they're gone. But by in large the stereotype doesn't fit. Prineville was the first town in Central Oregon, founded in the 1860's. It was then an agricultural/ranching town. We had a cattle vs. sheep war in them "old days". Timber as big business didn't really get going until the 1920's. It is gone, every large mill is now closed. Yet our population is growing. We are about double the 1990 population. "Timber town" is such a limiting stereotype, I wonder what you even could mean by using it. Reality is so much more complex.
Stereotype: Over cut, over graze. Let's take grazing first. I am a real estate appraiser, and I cover about a 7,000 square mile area in my business. I cover all of Crook, Wheeler and Jefferson Counties, and that corner of Deschutes that includes Redmond and Terrebonne. I can't really say that I see "over-grazing" as is typically meant in the stereotype. There are no large herds of cattle or sheep eating the vegetation to the ground causing erosion and waste. I do see some small parcels of an acre or two where people keep a horse - and those are beat to hell. But out of the 2,990 square miles of Crook County, those small little back lot horse pastures account for maybe 1 square mile. Trees - there are two types of land for trees. Private and public. Because of the Clinton compromise, the Ochoco Forest was deliberately cut beyond sustainability. Yet there is still a forest out there. Its mainly a pine forest that grows sort of slow compared to fir. Most people here know that, and aren't expecting more cutting in the Ochoco beyond thinning for years. But fire salvage and thinning are potential ways to create some harvest. It drives people here crazy when they hear of an environmental organization going to court to block fire salvage. Just adds to the stereotype going the other way about environmentalists. Private lands are wholely different thing. The private Ochoco Lumber Company has thousand of acres currently maturing for another generation. There are many 20 - 100 acre private timber stands that get cut some when the land owner needs some income. Generally, in pine forest private logging, thinning happens to increase long term yields. Actually, sustained timber harvesting is a reality on the private lands. -- So, throwing up nominalizations such as "over grazing" and "over cut" are stereotypes that aren't really helpful.
My whole point, and I think it has been variously grasped, then lost in the conversation here, is that there is/are new ways to look at issues here that can convert the middle of the electorate to vote more for Democrats. We need to stop worrying about being exactly correct and right about everything, and start thinking about how what we believe in could help people in areas like rural Oregon.
To put it in its simplist form - Democrats need to show up and stand for something here, or they will never gain another vote. It would be better to stand up for the people versus stand up for the Robber Baron Industries that are exploiting us on so many levels. It would be better to take on problems people perceive to be real (even if objectively they aren't real to you), and be part of the "solution" versus part of the "problem".
We have work to do to take on the "Red" areas of rural Oregon and the nation. We have to start looking at things from different perspectives, and find new ways to show we care about rural areas.
I just happen to live in a rural area, so I'm going to keep at this until you city folks either start to get it, or start to whimper when you see my name.
I'll be attending the Oregon Democratic Platform Committee meetings in March and April, and voting because I'm a member. This is new for me, because this last election proved to me that I can't get more votes on the ground for Democrats in Central Oregon until I get my party to be sensitive to rural issues. I'm taking steps to make that happen.
I challenge every reader of Blue Oregon to do something in the real world to make a difference. Do something to get one red vote to turn blue. Actions versus words. Work at it.
Feb 28, '05
Steve B,
Amen!!!
Mar 1, '05
Steve Bucknum,
you and I need to sit down and talk more about these topics over cold refreshments to give them the attention they deserve. You know a lot about that of which you speak, and I am the very "city folk" you speak of, but I remain confident that there are insights my ilk share with you.
10:43 a.m.
Mar 1, '05
I'm loving the Google provided ads at the top of this post. Every one of them is for sawmills or mill equipment.
Maybe Kari and Jeff could get Google to start color coding the ads based on political position........
1:57 p.m.
Mar 1, '05
Steve Bucknum,
I like your last post, and I agree with your main point "that there is/are new ways to look at issues here that can convert the middle of the electorate to vote more for Democrats."
I totally agree that Enviros and Democrats need to come up with a better message to and better solutions for people in rural communities.
I'd like to add another stereotype that doesn't really help to build bridges across the urban and rural divide: That environmentalists really just want to stop all timber harvests, turn everyone into vegetarians and shut down natural resource based businesses and jobs. Even though this might be the prevailing perception, I don't think we need to give in to it or pretend that it's true in order to move forward. In fact I think that would be counter-productive.
Most environmental groups support the kind of logging certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. The FSC isn't perfect but it's something enviros can say they basicaly support and is a good starting point. Also, most groups know that there's a lot of restoration work to be done in many younger, overgrown forests that could provide good paying jobs. The primary point of contention between enviros and industry on this issue, when it comes to federal land, is whether the work should be paid for by selling remaining old growth trees or not.
If we can get people to agree on protecting the best of what's left while moving forward on the restoration work that needs to get done then we'll be most of the way there towards a workable solution.
The bottom line for me has always been, are we driving animals and plants to extinction with our economy and business practices, or not? If we are, then we need to make changes so that our practices restore and maintain functioning ecosystems that support all life on earth, including humans. Yes, there are transition costs to getting there from here but I firmly believe that in the long run, more jobs will be created than lost, and the traditional boom and bust cycle of rural economies will be smoothed out.
5:51 p.m.
Mar 1, '05