Be the Spark!

contribute now

Marianne Nelson's comments:

on Spotty Recovery

One of the great laws of the Iroquois Indians is: "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." Unfortunately, that philosophy was not followed as we logged the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. We did not log sustainably. The listing of the Northern Spotted Owl was the equivalent of the canary expiring in the coal mine: it alerted the public to the fact that our old growth forests were what was endangered, not just one species of owls.

Logging more old growth forests will only result in short-gain profit for a few--it does not provide a long term solution to anything. Unfortunately, the Bush administration unduely influenced the original Draft Recovery Plan for the Nothern Spottted Owl. I was one of the public who was outraged, and testified at the public hearing. If the Northern Spotted Owl is ever going to survive, there must be healthy old growth forests. Certainly we must look at other threats such as the Barred Owl and now malaria. But these threats make it even MORE important to provide a healthy habitat for the Northern Spotted Owls. Without healthy ancient trees and the life they sustain, there can be no Northern Spotted Owl populations. The New Final Recovery Plan still does not adequately provide that.

The issue is really whether we are willing to stand up to protect what is left of our natural heritage in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Like with oil, lumber resources are limited. The solution for energy needs is not to ruin the artic wilderness to get more oil. And cutting more old growth forests will not provide logging jobs or lumber for long--a more sustainable approach must be found.

At the hearing someone spoke as if a Northern Spotted Owl and said: "You humns are very smart. You have split the atom and put a man on the moon. Can't you find a way to save some ancient trees so I will still have a home??"

posted 5 years ago
view in context

on Casinos and Condos in the Columbia Gorge

Would you want a large casino in a National Park? Would you want a large condo recreation development in a National Park?

My response would be a resounding NO to both those questions. The Columbia River Gorge is a National Scenic Area, not a National Park. But, many wanted it to be a national park--the resource is as awe inspiring and worthy of protection as any of our national parks. But, there were already urban areas and private lands, which would have created a "checker-board" national park--so legislation was created for the first National Scenic Area.

I am an active member of the National Parks Conservation Association, and believe that the Columbia Gorge ought to have the same kind of protection efforts. Although recreation is an industry to be pursued for the economic health of the gorge, it should be the kind of recreation that would be appropriate to a national park--not a large scale casino, nor a large scale condo development.

Marianne Nelson

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics