2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Old forests are the least fire prone.  Young forests are the most fire prone.  Tim Josi is wrong.  Stop with the forest fire fear mantra.   The original fires in the Tillamook were started by logging....

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

in 2006 the State AG declared there is no fiduciary responsibility to the counties....

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Ask Marvin Brown, why, in this FMP,  the oldest tree in the forest, outside the riparian areas will never be older than 80 years old.  There is no plan to leave old trees on the landscape forever...

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Additionally, In 2004, nearly 40% of Oregonians voted for a 50/50 plan to permanently protect 50% of the Tillamook and Clatsop state forests for fish and wildlife habitat while allowing sustainable logging practices on the other 50%.  The other 60% of Oregon voters voted to retain the current FMP. Measure 34 was out spent 10 to 1 by the timber industry for the most part. Had financial resources been equal, the 50/50 plan might be in place today.  During the campaign, Tim Josie and other county commissioners touted the current plan as a "good plan that just needed time to work". Then, ODF's Harvest/Habitat Yield study, initiated at the request of the timber industry, proved the forest wasn't producing the volume originally estimated by ODF. ODF Staff subsequently recommended a reduction of harvest, not an increase.  We are currently harvesting both forests at unsustainable levels.  Yet timber interests and politicians keep pushing to harvest more in the face of overwhelming science stating, to do so is unsustainable and would compromise fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water and general ecosystem health.  Increasing harvest levels for short term gains is a misuse of our resources and the public trust.

Jeff Mishler

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The greatest permanent value of these state forests is their ability to drive local economic engines with a thriving tourism industry, recruited by healthy salmon populations, clean water, recreational access and biological diversity, wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. 

What is the justification for this increase in harvest?  I can't find one logical answer to that question. 

I encourage everyone to drive deep into the Tillamook and see the aggressive logging taking place, since 2004.   Go there.  Use the forest. Leave no trace and tell your friends.  We can't protect what we don't care about. This is the largest contiguous rain forest in the lower 48 states.

I still hunt, fish and camp in the Tillamook.  I shot my first deer and bull elk there in the mid 70's.  I've caught salmon and steelhead there since I was 10 years old. I don't hunt the same areas I use to because they've cut the trees, built new roads and opened access to remote areas once worthy of a good hike.  The rivers have lost fish habitat and subsequently, the fish.  It's sad to watch this happen when we have examples of methods and tools to do better. 

Jeff Mishler

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

My niece is part of the graduating class of 08 at Philomath High School. She spent her entire school experience in the Philomath system. Our entire family was born and raised in Oregon. She is a 5th or 6th generation Oregonian, depending on which of our family you consider. Ironically, my father put himself through college in Oregon,and supported his family with logging jobs. We were a logging family. The recent change of requirements for the Clemens grant punishes young native Oregonians who had opportunities to go to other schools, but stayed and contributed to the excellent environment at Philomath High School, because they and their families trusted the scholarship would be there. My niece will hopefully find other scholarship opportunities, but other students who will depend entirely on that scholarship are being unfairly punished.

Jeff Mishler

posted 5 years ago
view in context

I believe we've ignored the simple fact that overfishing is the reason we've tipped the scales towards decline. When you combine all of the natural reasons for decline with increased angling pressure, the one thing we can control is harvest, and with a warming climate, the environmental conditions will only become more challenging for species survival.

Marine reserves allow species to reach mature breeding age. Commercial fishing is not discriminant. Fish are harvested before they can even breed.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context