Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's all fine. I was just giving stats. If you think Oregon's government should bend over backwards to support a rather insignificant industry(less then half a percent) that makes our state look like **** and meanwhile takes away a lot of the charm that draws people here. I see it all the time that they do it "with more care" here. All the clear cuts while driving to the coast, 90%+ of the land already logged etc.
I don't completely disagree with you. Nearly all the "managers" have really screwed things up, and I don't love the sight of clearcuts any more than you. However, the state has more purposes than just being good scenery. The Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest are a global resource for structural timber, and harvest does not seem like the end of the world (within the footprint of private lands, at least). And due to the light demands of that species, larger cuts are necessary for regrowth. However, I believe we hold forestry at a inordinately high standard. When we see a field of rapeseed or wheat or a vinyard or a pear orchard do we get offended? Their indigenous plant and animal species are often completely despoiled, yet such landscapes are often beautiful. I would wager that even an actively managed forest stand retains more habitat for native species than most types of agriculture, but we are offended by our high expectations of forests.
One of the challenges with Oregon is that many people come here for the majestic, unspoiled vistas, and forget that their desire for perfect scenery might take food off someone else's plate. This is timber country. Not exclusively, but that is the history. For a newcomer to claim to say what is nontrivial and what "belongs" is kind of like person who moves to the country and complains about the cows, and moreover, goes on to say "why don't you just open a wine bar like me?" I don't think beauty and rural land use are completely incompatible. I believe that forestry can be part of Oregon's future just the same as I will fight to keep Silver Falls State Park, Cape Perpetua, the Columbia Gorge, the Rogue Divide Wilderness, Crater Lake National Park, and the Eagle Cap free from development for future generations. I would add that there is wonderful scenery to be had in pristine and working landscapes. I would argue that if the loggers can compromise a bit (they have, and they have more to do), so can those who see Oregon as their personal garden.
Hey Fiddlehead, it's alright, I agree with you. I think they should be able to log on private land. Almost none of it is unspoiled anyways. I also think they should be able to do some thinning on public land where needed(previously logged areas). It does kind of bug me that I have to drive people out for hours just to show them what Oregon looks(looked) like. Keep in mind my parents for instance spend thousands of dollars and work dang hard all year just to come out and see this stuff. I have spent thousands and given up countless thousands(better jobs in other places). I've learned a lot about myself here. Sometimes you have to get out of your house and hustle and bustle of the city to do that.
This being an attraction for Oregon isn't a bad thing in my opinion. I've always thought that people in Oregon have it right, that life isn't just economics. Throwing away enjoyment for a penny or two. Maybe looking at these unspoiled regions as dollar signs in a different way if they insist. God knows all the people that do come and spend money and time to enjoy it.
We shouldn't have to compromise that for 0.45% of the population. The enjoyment of everyone else. I throw down thousands, my parents, my cousin, about 4 other friends who come to visit. Everyone I talk to who says this area is beautiful. Everyone who goes to the coast. Everyone who goes to Mt. Hood, Crater Lake, the Clackamas on a river rafting trip, next adventure, the rental car companies, airlines, hotels, gas stations, everyone who buys hiking boots, backpacks, tents etc etc.
That's all fine. I was just giving stats. If you think Oregon's government should bend over backwards to support a rather insignificant industry(less then half a percent) that makes our state look like **** and meanwhile takes away a lot of the charm that draws people here. I see it all the time that they do it "with more care" here. All the clear cuts while driving to the coast, 90%+ of the land already logged etc.
That was exactly my point, Ryan. Hostile government policy has virtually destroyed what was once the 2nd largest industry in the state.
You might be interested to know that if you have seen a clear cut in the last 15 years, it has been on a private tree farm, not federal land. That land was replanted the winter after it was cut, and in 15 years will start to look pretty again. Since there is no cutting on federal timber land, the pressure on private timber has gotten pretty intense. Meanwhile, the USFS and the BLM have banned clear cuts on federal lands except in very specific circumstances to control disease.
Government timber land in Oregon is managed like the king's hunting preserves in feudal Europe. The king may never set foot outside his castle, but if a hungry peasant hunted there, he was beheaded. It's particularly irritating in the case of O&C lands, alternate sections in a checkerboard pattern which were deeded to the Oregon and California Railroad to pay for building a north-south railroad in Oregon. The land was supposed to be sold to settlers to pay for the railroad, but the rail companies decided to keep the land for themselves. Congress took it back, and dedicated the revenues from the land to the support of local schools and government, which it did for over a century.
Larry, I agree and to me the most outragious is the O&C lands, they have stopped providing revenue to the counties our congressmen had to fight just to retain a piece of it. The biggest problem with federal lands, they take up about 60% of Oregons lands and they pay no state or county taxs, then they deny access for any type of logging or mineral access, this is just so someone can come a admire the view. I'm not saying that we should abandon common sense in managing our lands, but we should apply some common sense also.
Now don't go getting agreeable on me Ryant, I was just saddling up my high horse.....
I don't want to hijack this thread with a timber management discussion, which would be important and contentious enough by itself. I will agree with Larry Caldwell that the current restrictions have really been severe. However, I will surprise noone by pointing out that there are two sides to that story too. A lot of the federal old-growth logging of the 1960s-1980s was below cost, and amounted to welfare to Oregonians from the feds, and created a false sense of dependency. Moreover, corruption was widespread. However, trying to completely remove timber from Oregon economy seems absurd on its face, and the O&C lands were meant to provide revenue to local economies.
For now, I will just say that Oregon is in no economic position to be abandoning its existing industries. It seems to me that we need to keep (and improve) the old while adding new. One of the challenges is that as an immigrant state, Oregon has multiple layers of people who genuinely care about the land, but have passionate views about what is a right livelihood. They typically have different histories, origins, and move in different social circles. We need to reach some compromises that recognize the plurality of rural and urban, locally raised and transplant, professional and working class perspectives and needs.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-04-2011 at 10:38 AM..
All of this hand wringing over the spilt milk of bygone industries does little to help us plan for the future. There's not much of an industry left for wheelwrights, blacksmiths, liveries or buggy-whip makers, either. Many of us who were born during the Baby-Boom era fail to realize how our demographic shaped the economy as we passed through it. Let's look at the vicissitudes of the Baby Boomers by plugging them into the classic six-point life cycle of growth-based economics:
Introduction (1940's)
Growth (1950's-'70's)
Maturity (1980's-1990's)
Saturation (2000's)
Decline (2010's - 2030's)
Phase Out (2040's-2050's)
During the late 40's and 50's, manufacturers of baby food and formula, toys and clothing prospered. During the 1960's and 1970's thousands of schools were built to accommodate us and publishers of scholastic materials multiplied and prospered. As we entered our prime work years, there was a huge building boom as we demanded bigger and more luxurious homes, sometimes adding vacation homes, too. Investment markets and travel industries boomed as well. Entertainment electronics soared to unimagined heights as smaller family sizes left more discretionary dollars to spend on non-essentials. But this was all a transient spree.
We're on the downhill side of that bubble now. We're coming into phase 5. Baby boomers are retiring and the economy is contracting as a result. There is more slack in those industries now than can ever be taken up by future growth. In 1990, every retired person was balanced by 5 workers in the job market. In 2020 -- just nine years away -- that number will be cut in half: every retired person will have just 2.5 workers to subsidize them. How can that possibly work?
The "growth" in economic growth is ultimately fueled by population growth. Not only is the U.S. population graying, but this generation being born right now will be the last one that will add population size to the planet. Sometime around 2050 the planet's population will crest at around 9.5 billion and then -- just as the Baby Boomers are all gone -- the population flywheel will start to run backwards. The global population will decline in numbers for at least another century. What will happen then? All of our cities and towns will be grievously overbuilt. There will be uninhabited houses and unattended schools. All of society's infrastructure will gradually become oversized for the population it serves. This is less than 40 years away. Some of us will still be alive. For the rest of us, it will be an unimaginable burden for our kids.
We have no choice but to transition out of a growth-based economy. This isn't a philosophical position: the numbers simply don't pencil out for endless growth. Most of our country is pretty well built out and many cities are dangerously overbuilt. Trying to revive construction-based industries now is like bringing water to the ocean. We're also reaching critical supply peaks with petroleum, water and many metals, and material shortages are becoming an additional obstacle to continued growth. We have to reconcile ourselves to forming a steady-state economy. There is no other choice.
Is this a thread on Oregon's Past? Timber will never again be the state's second largest industry. Same way with making indian arrow heads, things change. Today harvest is 1/2 to 1/3 what it was in the peak glory days. Even if we got back to those levels it's not going to compete with the likes of tech or services. It's never going to employ as many people as it once did because technology is allowing for greater yields with fewer manhours. Analysts say it's worth more for tourism and recreation at this point.
There isn't even the demand for it. I'm sorry it's the way it is. Things change. It's not the federal government’s fault. Housing construction is at it's lowest. Wood is being recycled more, and different materials are used. We live in a capitalist society you have to play by the rules of supply and demand you can't make up jobs just because you want to.
"Visits to Oregon state parks, as measured by visitor days, have increased from 23 million annually to 41 million annually since 1970" ahem something increasing instead of crying over and longing for something that's decreasing.
All of this hand wringing over the spilt milk of bygone industries does little to help us plan for the future. There's not much of an industry left for wheelwrights, blacksmiths, liveries or buggy-whip makers, either. Many of us who were born during the Baby-Boom era fail to realize how our demographic shaped the economy as we passed through it. Let's look at the vicissitudes of the Baby Boomers by plugging them into the classic six-point life cycle of growth-based economics:
Introduction (1940's)
Growth (1950's-'70's)
Maturity (1980's-1990's)
Saturation (2000's)
Decline (2010's - 2030's)
Phase Out (2040's-2050's)
During the late 40's and 50's, manufacturers of baby food and formula, toys and clothing prospered. During the 1960's and 1970's thousands of schools were built to accommodate us and publishers of scholastic materials multiplied and prospered. As we entered our prime work years, there was a huge building boom as we demanded bigger and more luxurious homes, sometimes adding vacation homes, too. Investment markets and travel industries boomed as well. Entertainment electronics soared to unimagined heights as smaller family sizes left more discretionary dollars to spend on non-essentials. But this was all a transient spree.
We're on the downhill side of that bubble now. We're coming into phase 5. Baby boomers are retiring and the economy is contracting as a result. There is more slack in those industries now than can ever be taken up by future growth. In 1990, every retired person was balanced by 5 workers in the job market. In 2020 -- just nine years away -- that number will be cut in half: every retired person will have just 2.5 workers to subsidize them. How can that possibly work?
The "growth" in economic growth is ultimately fueled by population growth. Not only is the U.S. population graying, but this generation being born right now will be the last one that will add population size to the planet. Sometime around 2050 the planet's population will crest at around 9.5 billion and then -- just as the Baby Boomers are all gone -- the population flywheel will start to run backwards. The global population will decline in numbers for at least another century. What will happen then? All of our cities and towns will be grievously overbuilt. There will be uninhabited houses and unattended schools. All of society's infrastructure will gradually become oversized for the population it serves. This is less than 40 years away. Some of us will still be alive. For the rest of us, it will be an unimaginable burden for our kids.
We have no choice but to transition out of a growth-based economy. This isn't a philosophical position: the numbers simply don't pencil out for endless growth. Most of our country is pretty well built out and many cities are dangerously overbuilt. Trying to revive construction-based industries now is like bringing water to the ocean. We're also reaching critical supply peaks with petroleum, water and many metals, and material shortages are becoming an additional obstacle to continued growth. We have to reconcile ourselves to forming a steady-state economy. There is no other choice.
Outstanding summary! I have been thinking a lot about this issue, but not this comprehensively. Much appreciated. I completely agree that the transition must be made, by us, for our children and their children. Good for you Brenda (tried to rep. you, but denied..).
I suppose by this thinking and demographic viewpoint-which I think is correct, we will never reach the heyday or Oregon timber, because ultimately Douglas fir is best for building structures. However, by your nongrowth model, sustainably grown timber should be part of the mix, although in smaller shares than in the past. If Oregonians and Americans as a whole decide that even modest logging on O&C lands is unacceptable, we will need to decide what rural economies can do to maintain basic services. Right now they are over a barrel.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-04-2011 at 11:33 AM..
Is this a thread on Oregon's Past? Timber will never again be the state's second largest industry. Same way with making indian arrow heads, things change. Today harvest is 1/2 to 1/3 what it was in the peak glory days. Even if we got back to those levels it's not going to compete with the likes of tech or services. It's never going to employ as many people as it once did because technology is allowing for greater yields with fewer manhours. Analysts say it's worth more for tourism and recreation at this point.
There isn't even the demand for it. I'm sorry it's the way it is. Things change. It's not the federal government’s fault. Housing construction is at it's lowest. Wood is being recycled more, and different materials are used. We live in a capitalist society you have to play by the rules of supply and demand you can't make up jobs just because you want to.
"Visits to Oregon state parks, as measured by visitor days, have increased from 23 million annually to 41 million annually since 1970" ahem something increasing instead of crying over and longing for something that's decreased.
Well, it appears your ox is not being gored Ryant. So, of course, it seems trivial and anachronistic. I agree that it is not a government plot and the market is in the tank, but I don't agree it is a trival sector of the economy now or in the future. I strongly support all attempts at sustainable agriculture, and although we have a long way to go until we acheive them, they are a part of Oregon, especially the 95% that is not urban or suburban.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
