An article in Greenwire today about a recent poll (summary) in Oregon. A couple of excerpts:
Poll respondents were asked whether they would support a plan that would log 20 percent of the lands for $40 million in annual county revenue “and protect salmon and other types of threatened wildlife on virtually all of the wildlife habitats that could be impacted by logging” or a plan to log roughly 60 percent of the lands for $165 million in annual county revenue “and protect salmon and other types of threatened wildlife on less than half of the wildlife habitats that could be impacted by logging.”
Statewide, 55 percent of voters chose the former while 29 percent chose the latter. For southwestern county voters, the split was 53 percent to 31 percent.
According to the poll sponsor, Pew Charitable Trusts, the findings suggest that voters in the state favor the Bureau of Land Management’s “ecological forestry” model for the agency’s 2.4 million acres of O&C lands, rather than a bill by Oregon Reps. Peter DeFazio (D), Kurt Schrader (D) and Greg Walden (R) that would allow more than half of the land to be managed by a state-appointed timber trust.
DeFazio said he backed former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s ecological forestry policy but that it won’t provide the revenue counties need to provide basic services.
“The real question, and one that will have to be answered by Congress, is how do you provide legislative certainty that what we all agree on — more protection, more production, more jobs, and more revenue — actually happens,” he said. “I have answered that question.”