Subscribe for 33¢ / day

Mesmerized by industrial forestry efficiencies and corporate capital raiding revenues instead of sustainable forest practices, Linn County commissioners are convinced that state forest lands should be stripped of functional forests and modeled to meet or exceed corporate raiding rates, or else!

Or else what? Or else Oregon owes counties the income difference between having 0-30 year-old plantation hillsides and having reasonably paced forest management that produces forest products, clean water, wildlife, stable hillsides, and even a steady carbon sequestration rate.

It takes a pretty slick city lawyer to convince the commissioners that every citizen in Oregon owes plaintiff counties for that forgone opportunity. And of course, if Linn County et al. prevail against the state, we can expect our state lands to forever look like every other 0-30 year old plantation landslide-waiting-to-happen.

Yes, years ago our Benton County commissioners accepted a moderated state forest management plan, with Commissioner Jaramillo very much involved. Her informed "no" vote did not sway our two newly minted commissioners, eager to demonstrate "balance" between the already-balanced and Stumpland 2.0.

Glaringly missing from commissioner information packets was this historical information, for which we pay a county counsel. Worst of all is our county counsel's parroting information supplied by plaintiffs' lawyer that Benton County does not have the ability to withdraw as co-plaintiff. Rubbish!

I am not eager to extort all Oregonians, as we did agree to more reasonable state forest management. Winning this lawsuit means more state indebtedness. Benton County has cause to withdraw.

Jim Fairchild

Philomath (Jan. 9)

0
0
0
0
0

Load comments