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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

It's greatly dissapointing that Oregonians are engaged in this conversation again; short term economic gain versus long term gain in forest health and the multiple benefits that result from healthy forest ecosystems;watershed and habitat health.

We can't cut our way out of ecomomic downturns by increasing timber production in our state forests. Counties need to devise other means for sustaining thier economies, and not only rely on high timber yields as the source of revenue.  Reversing the current management plan to put timber production first, at the expense of our state forest's social and environmental values is shortsighted.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context