Dry Rot Eating Away At Ron Wyden’s Eastside Forests Bill
Told you so! Sen. Ron Wyden’s proposed “Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act of 2009″ (OEFROGPJA) is dead in the water and sinking fast. Dry rot is eating away the timbers, and worms are attacking the hull.
Yesterday an eco-litigious group, the Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC), sent Ron an 11-page letter [here] that says, in short, goodbye Charlie.
Previous posts regarding Wyden’s bill (OEFROGPJA) are:
Wyden Proposes the End of Forest Stewardship in Eastern Oregon [here]
AFRC Sells Out [here]
The Principal Defects in Wyden’s Forest Bill [here]
Harris Sherman on Jon Tester’s Forest Bill (same problems in both bills) [here]
What’s wrong with the eastside forest compromise (by Jack Ward Thomas) [here]
Summarizing the Defects in Wyden’s OEFROGPJA [here]
That last one lists and numbers all the flaws in OEFROGPJA. The eco-lits missed all those, except for #11: will not limit or preclude obstructionist lawsuits. The HCPC plays the litigation card in a few places in their letter:
If a main purpose of this Act is to reduce litigation over timber harvest projects, then the elimination of the administrative appeals process during the Interim Period is, simply put, a mistake. HCPC has a long-history of successfully using the appeal process to negotiate with the Forest Service and to ultimately avoid litigation in the vast majority of cases.
The vast majority? But of course, not all. Have lawyers, will sue. That EAJA pot o’ gold is just too tempting.
The HCLP also played the climate change card (no surprise there) and bemoans the switch from a 20-inch-diameter cut limit to a 21-inch-diameter cut limit. Horrors!
Perhaps most amusing is the backbiting against Oregon Wild, the eco-litigious extremist group that engineered the “compromise”.
The non-inclusive process by which the bill was developed was not an auspicious start. We find it highly ironic that a bill encouraging eastside local collaboration was developed without input from any eastside conservation groups. While we have much in common with our westside conservation partners, we could have brought well-needed on-the-ground knowledge to the drafting of this bill. …
In our opinion, excluding eastside groups from the drafting of the bill was also a strategic error. When we have discussed the bill with other interest groups they have reacted strongly to the exclusion of eastside groups. As this bill makes clear, to be effective, collaboration must include all stakeholders, especially those with a long history of committed involvement in the issues and areas at stake. To proceed without the involvement of local stakeholders has undermined the very goals that the bill purports to establish.
HCLP fails to mention that everybody in Eastern Oregon was excluded, not just the wackos. In fact, everybody everywhere was excluded, except for a handful of eco-nazis from Eugene.
Even the fawning Oregonian, which kisses the ground Wyden walks upon upon, had to admit his bill is twitching and gasping [here]:
Despite the unique coalition backing the bill, its chances in congress are uncertain.
“Uncertain” is a code word for all but six feet under. Is that the dirge music I hear?
Told you so. And good riddance, too.
by Forrest Grump
Ah, but they’re shameless. You shouldn’t expect pigs to sprout wings.
I learned something from HCPC. That “Eastside Science” thing they cite? Um, convened by Congress in the form of a letter from Jim Jontz, the Indiana nut job that went to American Lands nee WAFC after he got booted by voters. The “science” was funded by Weeden, Bullitt and Pew, conducted by SCB and no surprise, PRC, and two authors of note are Perry and Karr, of Beschta infamy. And of course, Pacific Rivers Council shilled Beschta.
That doesn’t make HCPC’s opposition very credible, but on the other hand, it just shows that legitimizing any of the eastside screens is questionable. Wyden and AFRC should both be ashamed.