Mike Riley
February 1, 2005
I confess. I grew up in Sweet Home. I went to high school in a hard-working small town on the South Santiam. Families made good livings producing lumber and plywood, but they also produced a wellspring of revenue for Oregon roads, parks and schools.
The Portland region hasn’t always subsidized its rural cousins. For decades, timber counties more than paid their own way. But due to relentless environmental challenges in response to irresponsible industry practices, for the past 15 years Oregon has seen federal timber harvesting at small fraction of reasonable and sustainable levels.
Simultaneous to the federal injunctions in the 1990s, Oregon’s high-tech boom was perfectly timed to offset the massive decline in the resource economy, even into the 21st Century. But years of decline in the Silicon Forest have taken their toll, and for the sake of school budgets alone, it may be time to take another look at our wood products heritage.
In 1994, President Clinton’s landmark compromise, the Northwest Forest Plan, was supposed to limit lawsuits and allow stable harvest levels, albeit at 20 percent of the volume in the mid-80s. But the injunctions continued and 10 years later, the actual federal harvest rates have been less than 20 percent of the compromise levels prescribed by the Clinton administration.
While Oregon has received federal safety net revenue, there’s no guarantee it will continue. But beyond timber harvest revenue, any up tick in the resource sector of the economy — and especially in rural counties — means renewed family-wage jobs, increased corporate and personal taxes, sales of equipment and services, sparking economic benefits all the way back to Portland.
Even relatively small increases in forest access could give our beleaguered state budget a timely boost. And no one is suggesting we lower harvesting standards; stringent rules are in place for protecting riparian areas, water quality, wildlife corridors, and promoting forest diversity.
Because the federal government owns more than half of Oregon, our Governor has an opportunity and responsibility to manage resources in the best interests of Oregonians. Governor Kulongoski should do what he can to promote responsible industry, as well as prudent fire zone management and timely salvage recovery.
Rampant wildfire and disease are not environmental benefits. Neglect and locked gates do nothing to help our state’s education system, healthcare support structure, or public safety efforts.
As we struggle for new answers to our budget woes, we should think again about the resource that Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt could only describe as “vast.” And perhaps we’ll find that at least part of our solution is actually not in Salem, but in Sweet Home and Oakridge and Prineville.
Maybe we just need to step back a bit and try viewing the situation a little differently. Maybe it’s time in Oregon to once again see the forest for the trees.
Michael J. Riley is Research Director of Riley Research Associates and serves on the Board of Directors of the Beaverton Education Foundation.
—
Note: These figures refer to USFS Region 6 (which includes Oregon and part of Washington), and are based on the Clinton Forest Plan’s prescribed harvest level of 1.1 billion board feet per year, versus the recent empirical harvest level of roughly 200 million board feet. Source: Ray Wilkeson, Legislative Director of the Oregon Forest Industries Council. (503-371-2942)