Here we go again with the Obama administration undoing a Bush administration policy. Pretty soon they’re going to run out of these, I just know it. Anyhow, today’s reversal comes to you from the Interior Department, which has reinstated limits on logging of old-growth forests in Oregon. The New York Times reports on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision:
Veering between swipes at “indefensible” moves by the Bush administration and pledges to step up noncontroversial timber sales, Mr. Salazar said in a conference call with reporters that he was reinstating a compromise reached 15 years ago to limit logging with the goal of protecting watersheds, trout and salmon fisheries and endangered birds like the spotted owl.
Calling the Bush policy one of many “mistakes” and “legal shortcuts,” Salazar reversed the policy that would have doubled the amount of logging allowable in the region under an agreement reached under President Clinton, and “would have allowed timber companies to cut up to 502 million board-feet of lumber annually from 2.6 million acres of forests.”
This is probably not a politically popular move in Oregon, as the logging industry would supply jobs to a state that has over 12 percent unemployment. In the county where the logging would take place, unemployment is almost 17 percent, thanks in large part to the timber industry shedding jobs. So, you can see how there might be some anger from those that live there. But, the administration believes that the policy was ill-conceived and dangerous to wildlife, so they shut it down. As a lawyer with Earthjustice said, “This is a big step for the Obama administration take.”
photo credit: Sam Beebe / Ecotrust’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons
CATEGORIES: Environment
Related Posts:
Stay Informed with TakePart:
Get Blog Updates:
Blogroll
- AlterNet
- Amnesty International Livewire
- b-listed
- Boing Boing
- Brave New Films
- CauseCast
- Changents
- Climate Crisis
- Democracy Now!
- Ecorazzi
- EdNews
- Environmental News Network
- Ethicurean
- GOOD
- Grist
- Harvard World Health News
- Huffington Post
- Human Rights Watch
- Inhabitat
- Meatless Monday
- Media Matters
- NewsTrust
- NRDC Switchboard
- Rock The Vote
- SEED Magazine
- SocialVibe
- Sustainablog
- TechPresident
- The Daily Dish
- The Democracy Center
- Think Progress
- TreeHugger
- Truthout
- Why Tuesday?
- Worldchanging


Wow, what a nuanced discussion! [not.] Instead of speculating about what Oregon residents “probably” think, you could actually interview an Oregonian or at least find some quotes from real news sources. Since when is it journalism to speculate what people “probably” think? Oh right, this is just a blog. But still, you could at least try.
Also, what do you mean, in the “county” where the logging would take place? What county is that, exactly? The WOPR (Western Oregon Plan Revision, Bush’s handout to the logging industry that would have replaced Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan) would have affected all of Western Oregon, which you should know is a lot more than one county! (Even if you are unable to talk to Oregon residents or read quotes from other articles because we all speak some strange language, you could at least look at a map.)
Sure, there are loggers who are opposed to this reversal, but you should also know that Oregon is a blue state and everyone I know is delighted that the WOPR is dead.
Clinton’s plan already allowed logging in 30 percent of old growth forests and a heck of a lot more logging in non-old-growth. The reason there are less logging jobs now is that the logging companies already logged Oregon so much that only 5 percent of old growth forests remain. There would be no way to return to the previous level of logging — even if we logged EVERY SINGLE TREE. Oregon needs to find new jobs that don’t depend on a natural resource that doesn’t grow back fast enough to support that many jobs.
Next time, do more than two minutes of research. Thanks.