Spring Break
Environmental politics ruining rural Oregonian life
Dwight Wozich
Issue date: 5/22/09 Section: Forum
Oregon is home to some of the most beautiful scenery in the nation. Our coastline is pristine and one-of-a-kind. We are surrounded by stupendous mountain ranges covered in lush forests and topped with glistening, snow-capped peaks. Our landscape is inundated with rolling rivers and lakes, and we are home to a diverse array of flora and fauna.
The natural wonders of our state are stunning, and the landscape of Oregon has become a tourist attraction that draws visitors from around the world.
In fact, the exquisite appearance of Oregon's natural wonders can be so overwhelmingly breathtaking that they cause many of us to view the wilds of our state through a flawed, museum-like mentality of "Look all you want, but don't touch!" Whenever state elections roll around, there is always a new piece of proposed legislation on the docket backed by liberal environmentalists that is trying to limit the timber industry, agriculture, fishing, mining or any other sector of the economy that relies on the harvesting of natural resources.
While being environmentally conscious is certainly a positive attribute, in the state of Oregon it has come to mean militantly opposing any sort of business pursuit that environmentalists feel is harmful. What many of these wannabe Captain Planets don't realize is that by trying to eliminate natural resource industries they are effectively killing the economy of rural Oregon.
The decline of Oregon's timber industry is a particular example of how liberal government and environmentalist intervention have directly contributed to the economic instability of rural Oregonians. Less than 20 years ago, the timber industry was the driving force behind Oregon's economy. Oregon was the leading state in the production of forest products, and nearly every rural town in western Oregon was home to a lumber mill, plywood plant or some other facet of the timber industry.
College students could work a summer in a mill or on a logging crew and make enough money to cover their educational expenses for the next year. For the people who didn't want to go on to higher education, the timber industry provided readily accessible jobs that offered a livable wage. Rural Oregon towns were home to hundreds of families who could trace their family ties to the timber industry back through several generations.
The natural wonders of our state are stunning, and the landscape of Oregon has become a tourist attraction that draws visitors from around the world.
In fact, the exquisite appearance of Oregon's natural wonders can be so overwhelmingly breathtaking that they cause many of us to view the wilds of our state through a flawed, museum-like mentality of "Look all you want, but don't touch!" Whenever state elections roll around, there is always a new piece of proposed legislation on the docket backed by liberal environmentalists that is trying to limit the timber industry, agriculture, fishing, mining or any other sector of the economy that relies on the harvesting of natural resources.
While being environmentally conscious is certainly a positive attribute, in the state of Oregon it has come to mean militantly opposing any sort of business pursuit that environmentalists feel is harmful. What many of these wannabe Captain Planets don't realize is that by trying to eliminate natural resource industries they are effectively killing the economy of rural Oregon.
The decline of Oregon's timber industry is a particular example of how liberal government and environmentalist intervention have directly contributed to the economic instability of rural Oregonians. Less than 20 years ago, the timber industry was the driving force behind Oregon's economy. Oregon was the leading state in the production of forest products, and nearly every rural town in western Oregon was home to a lumber mill, plywood plant or some other facet of the timber industry.
College students could work a summer in a mill or on a logging crew and make enough money to cover their educational expenses for the next year. For the people who didn't want to go on to higher education, the timber industry provided readily accessible jobs that offered a livable wage. Rural Oregon towns were home to hundreds of families who could trace their family ties to the timber industry back through several generations.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 8
Eric Hill
posted 5/22/09 @ 9:55 AM PST
Rather than addressing the myriad fallacies (not the least of which is Straw Person by presenting all democrats as wanting to throw people under the juggernaut of environmental responsibility) in your article, I'll merely point out that your comments here remind me of when I lived in California and our glorious former governor, Ronald Reagan, was asked why he was trying to push through legislation that was so devastating to our "natural resources. (Continued…)
Chris
posted 5/24/09 @ 10:43 PM PST
This is an issue that is very near and dear to me. The look but don't touch attitude, and the viewing of a tree as some sort of sacred entity is very annoying. (Continued…)
Eric Hill
posted 5/25/09 @ 8:50 AM PST
This is an issue that is near and dear to me as well. I'm sorry that the idea of a tree being considered sacred is annoying to you; I got every bit as annoyed when I sat in on a silvaculture class at OSU and heard a forest referred to as a "stand of lumber" or trees measured in terms of board feet. (Continued…)
Chris
posted 5/26/09 @ 2:27 AM PST
That's an excellent idea! A viable alternative to wood! No, I'm certain that no one besides the great Eric Hill has even began to think about something as clever and revolutionary as that. (Continued…)
Anonymous
posted 5/27/09 @ 12:25 AM PST
"My wife did her PhD in forestry at OSU and was horrified to see how much supply side propaganda permeated the program"
Why do you think the program feels that way? Perhaps because the program was created by the timber industry, and is funded by the timber industry. (Continued…)
Eric Hill
posted 5/27/09 @ 4:34 AM PST
Chris, your indoctrination by the logging industry propaganda is evidenced by your cherry picking of the data (comments like "clear cuts do not wipe out biodiversity" reveal your ignorance on the matter). (Continued…)
Chris
posted 5/27/09 @ 12:07 PM PST
While I will not call it the lesser of two evils, I think that is how someone like you should think of it. Clear cutting 100,000 acres wipes out biodiversity. (Continued…)
Matt
posted 5/27/09 @ 11:56 PM PST
There is no economy if the environment is not preserved.
The viability of the latter is entirely dependent on the health of the former. You cannot continue to have a job cutting down forests if no forests will grow for you to cut down. (Continued…)
Post a Comment
Comments by registered users are approved by default.