ENHS Nature Trails Oct 98 Article 2

President's Forum: "Ballot Measure 64: Not a clear cut issue"
by Nathan Tublitz
ENHS President

The leaves are turning and that means that the election season is again upon us, bringing with it the now traditional spate of ballot measures. The year's most environmentally controversial measure is Ballot Measure 64, the "no clear cut, no spray" initiative sponsored by OLIFE, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics. This measure is sparking voluminous debate across the state, including at our recent ENHS meeting in September, and has created quite a dilemma for many environmental organizations. Should environmentalists support any and all pro-environmental issue regardless of its flaws? Before that question can be answered, the issues surrounding this particular measure need to be explored in depth.

The complete text of Measure 64 runs over 4 single spaced pages and can be found verbatim at the OLIFE web site (http://www.efn.org/~olife/). Its stated purpose is "to promote sustainable, labor intensive, forest practices and promote forest ecosystems by restricting clearcut logging and use of chemical herbicides and pesticides on forest lands of the state". Simply stated, it prevents the harvesting of any tree in the state greater than 30 inches in diameter at breast height, and prohibits the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides on forest lands. It also bans clearcutting, which it defines as leaving on any acre in Western Oregon fewer than 70 trees (60 in Eastern Oregon) at least 11 inches in diameter. Seems quite reasonable, eh?

Well, OLIFE and their supporters certainly think so. OLIFE, like most of us, deplores the ecological devastation of our public forests caused by over harvesting. The failure of President Clinton's 1994 Forest Summit to produce a viable solution to this problem and the implementation of the notorious, pro-timber industry "Salvage Rider" a year later that resulted in record setting timber harvests generated a strong grassroots backlash across the nation to stop the destruction of our national forests. More anger has been recently generated by the trading of prime forest lands to timber companies in exchange for properties of lesser aesthetic quality. Measure 64 was born out of this public outrage. Its admirable goal is to legislate stringent standards for the management of all our forests, large and small, public and private. Proponents view this measure as the only way to save our forests.

Stopping clear cutting and herbicide/pesticide usage is clearly laudable, but is Measure 64 the way to go? This measure has an unusual collection of opponents, ranging from the Governor to Big Timber to some environ-mentalists, all of whom have focused on the clear cutting part of this measure. Gov. Kitzhaber and the Secretary of State have generated figures suggesting that this measure, if passed, will reduce the number of jobs in the state and decrease annual timber harvests by 60%. This loss of revenue will seriously impact the funding of our schools as well as other state and local services. Timber companies are against 64 for obvious reasons. So are small timber lot owners, who claim they will never survive financially if forced to harvest small diameter trees only. People who have raised large trees (>30" diameter) with the expectation of harvesting them sometime in the future would be banned from doing so. Some environmentalists claim that passage of this measure will actually lead to an increase in the amount of clear cut acreage and a decrease in large trees since it will encourage small timber lot owners to fall all trees under 30 inches in diameter. For more info on the arguments against 64, go to http://www.healthyforests.org.

When the ENHS was asked to lend its name to the list of Measure 64 supporters, our esteemed Board was evenly split, so we turned to you, our members, to help us decide. We had a brief but spirited discussion at our September 19th meeting during which many of the above arguments, both pro and con, were raised. After the discussion, the issue was put to a vote and we decided to support 64 by a slim majority.

My personal viewpoint is that 64, although seriously flawed, should be supported to send a strong message to our elected representatives that our forests must be protected at all costs. There are those who say this poorly designed ballot measure will harm the environmental movement. To those folks, I say that we can iron out the details later in the legislature or in the courts, but environmentalists must stand together and support all pro-environmental issues. Although inflexible, poorly written, and arbitrary, Measure 64 is still better than doing nothing.

That's my view. You may not agree and that's ok. But make sure you read about 64 and please, please vote on this and the other important issues on the ballot this coming November.

[ Back ]

Page last modified: 26 November 1998
Location: http://biology.uoregon.edu/enhs/archive/oct98/oct982.html
E-mail the WebSpinner: aloysius@gladstone.uoregon.edu