I found a news item in the Seattle Times this morning, Saturday, rather hard to believe.

The governor of Oregon (won't try to spell his name without help) sent a letter to the US Forest Service protesting the Bush administration's plan to relax roadless area restrictions in national forests.

He also said, according to this article, that he wants governors/states to have more say in the way national forests within the state's borders are managed.

HOWEVER, and it's a big however, one of the primary points in the Bush administration's reversal of Bill Clinton's lame-duck roadless declaration is that state governors can be involved in the decision process of whether or not a roadless area stays in the designation.

In other words, Bush is trying to give the states the ability to decide, or input in the decision, on how federal lands (or roadless areas in this case) are managed. So the Oregon governor (Kulongske?) is objecting to a proposal that will give him what he wants.

Is he really: a) ignorant? b) that stupid? c) hypocritical? or d) just trying to get re-elected in a Democratic state?

I'm voting for B) with the belief that the guy is trying to be partisan and that the Bush proposal, since it comes from Bush, must be bad.

I would hate to think that the governor of Oregon believes all his citizens are that gullible.

My $.02,

Keith

I would say that another choice should be put up there.... e.) smarter than the average bear.

And my answer would be e.)

The Bush administration gets to dump a Clinton era decision and put the t*rd in someone else's pocket.... in the form of "local" decision-making. Then, the administration gets to pressure the "local" decision-makers into doing the administration's bidding. How? Funding. For example, Oregon's decision to support the Bush administration's position on roadless areas could be tied to the annual Federal Highway funding bill... and the dollars that Oregan sees would go up or down depending on the "local" decision. Happens all the time.

My $0.02.

They amended their constitution to appease the evangelical zealots, didn't they? Yeah, they're that gullible.

BTW, pacificnw is right on. That quid pro quo crap is far too prevalent in today's politics.

My dollar-two-ninety-eight.

"evangelical zealots"

No - the term should be " the voting public". Sure, there were a lot of Christian and other religious types voting on this for religous purposes - but many non-religious folks voted to support traditional marriage for a wide variety of reasons. Last time I checked - Oregon wasn't exactly known as a big religious state. In fact, I think it is pretty low on the list...

One of the reasons I was pulling for Chris for Governor was the belief that she too would tell Bush we want our roadless areas to remain roadless. The Bush rules allow each state to opt in or out of keeping the roadless areas roadless.

Call it locking up if you will, but we have so little roadless area left at I see no reason to open it up to logging. Per a very well done repot by Trout Unlimited these areas are vital to many endangered species such as Westslope cutthroat trout and they provide a safe haven for trophy elk, deer and other species.

It's curious to my why this administration is so zealous about giving the states free rein on this, when they seem so hell bent to overrule state initiatives such as Oregon’s assisted suicide laws.


http://www.tu.org/pdf/home/RoadlessOR-final.pdf

The thing I object to most about the last-minute roadless ruling is that it was a federal mandate created, I think, for political gain. Partisan politics should play no part in the management of a resource, IMHO.

When it comes to resource issues and whether something should be used, conserved or protected, I firmly believe that close-to-home management is better than management at a distance.

I would much rather have a Washington governor asking for input from citizens make a decision on a resource issue than a bureaucrat in D.C. or a blue-haired little old lady in Florida who's run out of toilet paper or canned salmon for her kitty.

If we had state management, it's likely that the Elwha dams would be down now instead of just starting to come down.

My $.02,

Keith

Much of the land in question is National Forrest land. I also believe that in places the roadless areas cross state boundaries. Who better to manage federal land than the federal government? It makes little sense to me to have part of a wilderness area opened to logging and other resource extraction uses, while a part across the state line is managed differently. The trout and game animals are not concerned with state boundaries. I think those who do not seek immediate financial gain from its management can better handle resource management.

I believe you will see that in states with pro development governors, states like Alaska Idaho, and Montana the roadless ban will be lifted. In states like Oregon and hopefully Washington the ban will stay in place. That tells me that the management decisions are in fact based upon political ideology rather than sound resource management considerations.

That to me is the epitome of managing a resource for political gain.

The people who are all for lifting the ban on new roads are big business folks who are trying to profit at the publics expense... It won't happen in Idaho, to many people who actually understand the value of wilderness areas live here.... Yes, even the republicans...

"are big business folks who are trying to profit at the publics expense... "

So you are saying that they are also the only consumers? That there is no public need for these resources ? I makes sense for companies to spend millions of doallars with no market. Last time I was in Idaho there where a lot of building going up ,roads being built etc etc.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Theking:
Last time I was in Idaho there where a lot of building going up ,roads being built etc etc. [/QUOTE]


And all without new roads in roadless areas! Looks like we are doing just fine as is. And TK, the last time we had this discussion, wasn't it you who pointed out that there really wasn't all that much roadless area left anyway?

I do know I have read recent reports about a glut of timber on the market and Washington State plans to dramatically increase timber production. Given that, do we really need to open up the wilderness areas that remain?

Dave,

My point is that demand drives the process not the corps. Stop building big homes and the demand will drop and so will the need to use roadless areas. It is not a big conspiracy to rape the environment. If everyone wants a new 2800sf home with brand new 80 fot easements paved and sidewalked the raw goods have to come from somewhere.

Personally I would like to see everything locked up but I will not
blame someone for taking my dollar vote and using it the best waythey know how to keep me happy.

On the lumber I am not sure if there is a glut. Maybe in Canada due to the soft wood import taxes. They have driven the price of plywood etc. up. A 4x8 sheet of 7/16" OSB is double what it was a year ago.

About the plywood prices. Have you seen the ship loads of plywood we are giving iraq and Afganhastan to rebuild? Free of charge. That might have something to do with OSB going from $6 a sheet to over $17!!!

So you're saying supply determines demand?

Dans,

How do you get that? other than natural resource based companies have to forecast demand years in advance.

"Stop building big homes" = reduce supply

"and demand will drop" = reduced demand

Umm.......still not clear.

DanS

Stop building big homes = reduced demand for resources

Reduced demand = Reduced supply

Ahhhhhhh.........ok. Got it now.

I think I finally figured out TK's secret identity.....He's Ken Jennings


As much I usually enjoy TK's posts, that last theory on supply and demand isn't going to win him any money in Final Jeopardy.

RB, I assumed that people knew I was talking about resources to build a home not the end product as a supply item.

You're making the classic mistake of confusing supply and demand with quantities supplied and demanded. Demand changes because of peoples tastes and desires, quantity demanded changes because of price. The supply of materials (and their corresponding price) will have no effect on the demand for big homes.

What I said was remove the demand for big homes and there would be less demand for the natural resources and the materials made from them. If we quit building 3000sf homes and reduced them to 2000 sf avg. We would need and consume 1000 sf less material. Supply would have to go down or the suppliers would go broke.

"The supply of materials (and their corresponding price) will have no effect on the demand for big homes."

Sure it would. This is a real life example. If a 2800 sf home cost $200 per sf to build today and that cost went up to $250 per sf that adds $140 K of cost. This is simply the difference in using certified green materials in the build vs. standard practice materials. Try convincing a developer to make that move for the good of the world.

Its way more simple than that... stop selling logs to Japan etc and start selling them desks and chairs, finished lumber etc.

Once again, in your example, demand has not changed. Quantity demanded has, because the price has gone up. From an economic standpoint, there is a distinct difference.

In your example, cost of materials has gone up, increasing the price of the finished home. In that case, the supply curve will move back resulting in a higher price, and a smaller quantity demanded.

If demand had changed, as you are claiming, you would see the price drop and the quantity demanded fall as the demand curve shifted back.

You're mixing your economic terms.

TK: Fun stuff. Now I remember why I hated economics.

BUT . . . there is ample lumber supply even with all our exports and our huge homes. There is no need to log the few roadless areas we still have.

Very true Dave... Clear cuts I hunted 20 years ago will be ready to log again in about 10 years. There is no shortage of trees out there on forrest service land.

DanS,

True

Dave,

Yes but at what cost to the environment? Do you think the roadless issue would be as big if we had less logging?

TK: Who else wants the roads ??? give an example of who would be happy with a reduction of wilderness area.

BRun,


Just so you understand my position. I do not want any roads built anywhere and would like to see more shut down. The point I am making is about the people that are dead set against the roadless int being repealed . They are driving the need by consuming the resources( it's more mined goods that forest goods). So I am pointing out that unless they are willing to change their life style more roads will have to be built. We do however have to make a choice about managing fire issues in wilderness areas regardless of the road less issue.

Not really. An alternative is just letting the price of the resources reflect their reduced supply. Of course economic forces will lead miners to gain whatever access they can..........but if the access isn't there, the price will just go up, and people will consume less.

TK: I guess, sorta maybe... I don't think demand has anything to do with it. There is no shortage of timber or minerals.. there is a shortage of " easy high profit margin ... make the company a ton of money resources.. while keeping wages low and sucking off the goverment boob at the same time resources "

It costs a lot to log these days, and its not really the lack of trees. Its the difficulty of harvest. Big timber wants time to stand still. They want it like the good old days when they could build a road, put in a mill, hire the whole town for low wages, log everything thats easy to get, then leave. The bottom line is just not as high as it used to be at the ownership and stock holder level. It can be profitable under current regulation, but they liked the old way better.

Anyway, thats what loggers I know think is at stake, and I know more than a few.

DanS,

True again but we know that our society is like water and we take the path of least resistance. The roads will be built as history has proven. If you read the whole roadless int. it's not as bad as it sounds. I just prefer to have wilderness area that keeps most people out so my horses and I can hunt can hunt in peace.

TK
Least resistance, so very true

No argument here, tk. The profit motive is very strong in an economy like ours.