Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Just to balance things out: Obama administration drops Bush logging plan for western Oregon

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 07:16 PM
Original message
Just to balance things out: Obama administration drops Bush logging plan for western Oregon
The Obama administration is withdrawing a controversial Bush-era logging plan for millions of acres of federal forests in western Oregon. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today the plan, put forward last December in the final days of the Bush administration, violates federal law.

The plan, called the Western Oregon Plan Revisions, "is based on a legally-indefensible process. It will not stand up in court," he said. Secretary Salazar's announcement won't silence any chainsaws currently cutting in Oregon forests because no timber sales based on the logging plan have actually gone forward.

And now perhaps none will. That's a victory for conservationists and gives pause to rural Oregon counties who were hoping stepped-up logging would mean more revenue for them from federal timber receipts. The secretary said the administration would also review the recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, and they will ask a federal court to throw out the Bush administration's revisions to habitat set aside for the endangered bird.

Today's announcement is the most recent of many Obama rollbacks of Bush-era natural resource rulings. Getting special attention are those decisions that were influenced by Julie MacDonald, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

A Department of the Interior Inspector General's report found MacDonald was "heavily involved" with editing and reshaping reports from the department's scientists, including those working in Oregon. Salazar referenced that report multiple times in his announcement, which comes as the Obama administration is facing upcoming court deadlines on conservationists' court challenges to both the logging plan and owl habitat rules.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/07/obama_adminstration_drops_bush.html

Julie MacDonald, as some might remember, was one of the Bush administration's premier science manipulators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_MacDonald
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's good news.
:thumbsup:

Despite the fact that I live in a semi-rural county in Oregon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Goods news
Western forests need more science than emotion and politics.

I found Vilsack a terrible appointment.

Forests that have not been touched by modern man need to be preserved and protected.

Most forests that have been touched by modern man can be moved back to a more steady and sustainable state; caveat: there are many lands that would be useful by restoration and then preservation on harsh and low productivity and/or inaccessible sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thank you,
depakid!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Even Steven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-16-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not good news for everyone
Edited on Thu Jul-16-09 08:49 PM by Oregone
The truth is, logging and mill jobs are among the best blue collar jobs in Oregon and a lot of small (and larger) towns do well with em. And a lot of towns recently have not done well in their absence. In lieu of these jobs, able bodied men flocked to the housing sector in places with positive migration, and well, we all know how that turned out (and now there are a lot of unemployed). Small towns used to really depend on this activity. Some of these places are just stagnated messes for the last decade or two with no real hope to shift their economies elsewhere.

And it isn't like outlawing these practices have helped the environment long term. The US just imports timber from Canada and outsources environmental destruction elsewhere beyond eyesight. Thats a dishonest way to deal with it.

Its all really a tough thing to approach, and clinging to extremes (which breed each other) doesn't help anyone. I wish people can find balance. A middle ground to harvest lumber responsibly that provides jobs and minimal environmental damage. Outsourcing it kills jobs locally and doesn't do a thing about eliminating the environmental degradation

I don't have an answer. But live in these towns, work in the schools, meet the children and the parents of the generation that had so much opportunity when their towns were viable...and it leaves you confused/ambivalent. How to balance that social imapact with responsible forest management? Probably not a question the extreme free marketers will answer, but sometimes something the adamant anti-loggers can't solve either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. But doesn't the U.S. get paid less for the lumber it exports than it costs to produce the lumber?
I know that went on extensively in the 90s. I'm not sure if/how that has changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Its the US's fault for outsourcing lumber production
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 01:47 AM by Oregone
In the 90's, 60% of US timber exports comprised of raw logs headed for Asia. They were milled there into lumber products for little cost. So, that lowered the market price of lumber so much that domestically produced lumber could not possibly compete in price. Somewhere, someone up top scooped up profits as more good jobs were lost.

So while you can say, on one hand, these mill jobs cannot compete on the global scale and were basically obsolete, they most certainly could have if trade policies were different in the US. Why? Because the US controls the global market of softwood. Almost half of the exports of softwood logs in the 90's was from the US alone. No one could have competed with domestic lumber production if trade mechanisms didn't allow this to happen.

This isn't the same as China being able to produce toys cheaper than the US. This is worse. Imagine 100% of the raws needed for those toys were in America, and it was shipped to China first, and then domestic production couldn't compete with Chinese production. Well, it most certainly could if those raws weren't sold so low, and if not so much of them were sold.

Someone got greedy. A lot of people suffered.

Now, when you add that situation with the fact that a lot of actual logging is shutting down, and it just spells bad news for towns that depended on it. Who knows where to start to create both health forests and healthy towns, but the free market is probably the last place to look. Some people just aren't interested in looking at all, and just want their extreme to win at any cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC