(OMED: During the Tuesday, May 20, 2003 introductory portion of his program {KXL, 750 AM, Noon to Four, Portland and a network of stations throughout Oregon and extending to portions of the states of Washington and Idaho}, Lars Larson asked his audience if it was time to reinvigorate the Oregon natural resources industry.  

(By this, he means just the timber industry.  This is a natural {pun unavoidable} mistake on his part.  Within the Oregon conservative community, this is how the argument has been framed.  If you say "natural resource," it means one, and only one kind of natural resource.  Timber.  And, this conservative framing of the discussion is even incorrect, there.

(Except for logging in parks {national, state, etc.}, timber is no longer a "natural resource."  It is agriculture.  (When you plant a plant, tend it until it grows big enough, then harvest it, this is known as agriculture.  Farming is another name for it.  Man-created fields of plants are not "natural resources."  Most of the "forests" {also incorrect terminology} loggers harvest in Oregon are growing in tree farms. 

(It is the position of this publication that by setting up the timber arguement as being one of enviro-nazis versus jobs, the conservative movement in Oregon {and America} has improperly framed the question.  It is rare for conservatives, who are fact and logic based people, to do something like this, but we all have blind spots.  For conservatism, this is a big blind spot.  The text which follows was the note we sent to Lars.)

Are salmon "natural resources?"

If so, I am fully in agreement with your wish to reinvigorate Oregon's
natural resource industries. What I am against is the reinvigoration of
one Oregon natural resource industry at the expense of another Oregon
natural resource industry.

Since both timber and fishing are entirely dependant on Oregon
watersheds, it makes sense that both should treat those watersheds in a
way which does not negatively affect the business of the other.  (Or, we
should simply be honest about it, and openly admit that the price of a
flourishing timber industry is the destruction of the fishing industry.)

The validity of this point may be proven by considering the following.
Ocean conditions did not cause Oregon salmon to disappear while leaving
record runs in Alaska.  Sea Lions did not cause Oregon salmon to
disappear while leaving record runs in Alaska.  Indians did not cause
Oregon salmon to disappear while leaving record runs in Alaska.  And,
the dams?  If they are at fault, why are the runs barely surviving in
rivers which are not dammed?

Finally, the reports of "record runs" made by the Oregonian and the TV
stations..  1) Is there some reason why you trust what the Oregonian or
the broadcast nega-brains say?  2) Why are the rivers not lined with
canneries as they once were, and why is the salmon charter and
commercial business on the coast a fraction of what it once was?

It is right in front of you, Lars.  Common sense, of which you have a
great supply, is all that is needed to see it.  If you could shed your
bias in this specific area, you would.

LL

© 2003 Oregon Magazine