Measure No. 64

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in Opposition

Measure Contents Page

Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 3, 1998.

BALLOT TITLE

64

PROHIBITS MANY PRESENT TIMBER HARVEST PRACTICES, IMPOSES MORE RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:"Yes" vote adopts restrictions on timber harvest practices, including federal regulation, allows citizen-suit enforcement.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains current regulations concerning timber harvest practices.
SUMMARY: Prohibits many present timber harvest practices, chemical herbicides, pesticides in forest. Limits size of trees that can be harvested. Covers private, state, federal forestlands. Imposes new harvest regulations including federal regulation by classifying forestland waters as "navigable." State Board of Forestry must adopt new timber harvest methods and regulations to meet new requirements. Requires state to submit new forestland water quality plan to federal Environmental Protection Agency, seek approval before permitting logging. Authorizes citizens suits to enforce new harvest restrictions or other provisions of measure.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: State revenues are estimated to decrease $25,000,000 per year. This estimate assumes a 60% harvest reduction in western Oregon and a 65% harvest reduction in eastern Oregon. These estimated decreases apply to private, local and state lands.
Current state expenditures are estimated to decrease by $25,000,000 because of the revenue loss. Major annual state expenditure reductions would occur in forest management, fire protection, and regulation, timber tax revenue and administration, and Common School Fund forest land management.
Also, added regulations required by this measure would increase the need for ongoing state government expenditures above current requirements by $5,000,000 per year. One-time state expenditures of $1,400,000 would be required.
Revenues to schools are estimated to decrease by $33,200,000 a year. County and special district revenues are estimated to decrease by $7,800,000 per year.
Revenues that contribute to the Common School Fund will be reduced by $8,700,000 primarily due to an estimated 84% decrease in harvest on Common School Fund Trust lands. This, in turn, will mean reduced earnings on the Common School Fund principal for distribution to schools.

TEXT OF MEASURE

AN ACT BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF OREGON

TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE, LABOR INTENSIVE FOREST PRACTICES AND PROTECT FOREST ECOSYSTEMS BY RESTRICTING CLEARCUT LOGGING AND USE OF CHEMICAL HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES ON FORESTLANDS OF THE STATE, AMENDING ORS 527.610-527.992.

FINDINGS

[1] Clearcut logging in Oregon is an unsustainable forest practice, incompatible with long-term forest productivity and detrimental to fish, wildlife, water quality and the sustained yield of high-quality wood products.

[2] Clearcut logging substantially increases the likelihood of large landslides and severe flooding. These human-caused disturbances have been shown to result in loss of wildlife habitat, personal property, and human life.

[3] Clearcut logging displaces thousands of forest products jobs by requiring machine-intensive technologies and discouraging investment in highly skilled labor.

[4] Chemical herbicide and pesticide use on forestlands of Oregon is an ecologically destructive forest practice which unnecessarily puts humans, fish, and wildlife at risk of toxic exposure, destroys the nutrient and organic content of forest soils, and threatens the health and safety of forest products workers.

[5] Clearcutting and the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides in forest operations has resulted in serious degradation of Oregon's surface and ground water supplies by increasing sedimentation and turbidity, adversely altering the chemical composition of such waters, introducing toxic pollutants, and killing aquatic organisms.

[6] Labor-intensive alternatives to herbicide and pesticide use on Oregon's forestlands have and will continue to create thousands of new job opportunities in ecologically sustainable forest management.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

Section I: Restriction of Clearcutting, Herbicide, and Pesticide Use on Oregon's Forestlands

[1] That, in order to safeguard the long-term productivity of our forests, maintain clean water, support viable populations of fish and wildlife, provide for biological diversity, protect economic opportunities available to forest dependent communities, and maximize the labor and skills of our forest products workforce, clearcutting shall no longer be a lawful forest practice on federal, state, and private forestlands in Oregon.

[2] That, in order to preserve the genetic diversity of native tree species and to enhance the ecological health of Oregon's forestlands, it shall no longer be a lawful forest practice on federal, state, and private forestlands in Oregon to harvest a tree that exceeds a measurement of 30 inches diameter at breast height.

[3] That, in order to maintain the productive potential of forest soils and eliminate unnecessary risks to humans, fish, and wildlife from contamination of air, soils, and waters of the State, use of chemical herbicides and pesticides on forestlands shall no longer be a lawful forest practice in Oregon.

[4] That, one year from enactment of this Act, the Board of Forestry shall, for each of the forest communities found in the State of Oregon, prescribe a list of lawful timber harvesting methods which:

a. do not involve clearcutting as defined by subsection (6) of this Section.

b. do not involve use of chemical herbicides or pesticides for regeneration of forest cover or protection of forest health.

c. maintain or maximize development of sufficient numbers of large, live trees, standing dead trees, and large, downed logs to provide habitat for species dependent upon the structural and compositional diversity such stands provide on at least 50% of each harvest unit.

d. prohibit on-site burning of slashing.

e. minimize the use of heavy equipment and roads to prevent soil compaction and erosion.

f. maximize the potential for natural regeneration of native tree species.

g. maximize the replanting of a diversity of native tree species.

h. encourage the use of highly skilled forest management staff in planning, implementation, and monitoring of forest operations.

No timber harvesting in Oregon shall, upon adoption of final timber harvest methods by the Board, be inconsistent with such methods.

[5] That, until the Board prescribes lawful timber harvest practices pursuant to subsection (4) of this Section, no timberland owner or operator shall conduct timber harvest operations which result in lands being clearcut on any acre of forestland in the State.

[6] That, for the purposes of this Act, clearcut shall be defined as:

any harvest unit in western Oregon that leaves on any acre of the unit fewer than 70 well-distributed trees that measure at least 11 inches diameter at breast height or that leaves less than 120 square feet of basal area. In eastern Oregon, a clearcut means any harvest unit which leaves on any acre of the unit fewer than 60 well-distributed trees that measure at least 10 inches diameter at breast height or that leaves less than 80 square feet of basal area. For the purposes of this subsection, no tree shall be counted unless the top one-third of the bole of the tree supports a green, live crown. For the purposes of computing basal area, trees larger than 20 inches diameter at breast height shall be considered 20 inch trees.

[7] That, no timber harvest operation in the State shall be commenced until filing of a notice and written plan. Notice and written plans shall document compliance with provisions of this Act, in addition to all other substantive requirements of law.

[8] That, provisions of this Section shall supplement or replace, where appropriate, requirements of the Oregon Forest Practices Act, ORS 527.610-527.770, 527.990(1), 527.992.

[9] That, for purposes of this Act, all waters of the State where timber harvest occurs or could potentially occur shall be deemed navigable waters which, without the action proposed by this Act, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the nonpoint source goals and requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 USC 1329].

[10] That, requirements of this Section shall supplement Oregon's Water Quality Management Plan for nonpoint source water pollution on forestlands provided in OAR Chapter 340, Division 41, and shall supplement the Best Management Practices identified by the Board pursuant to ORS 527.765 for meeting water quality standards set by the Federal Water Pollution Prevention Act, [33 U.S.C. 1329].

[11] That, the Governor and State agencies shall promptly modify existing management programs to conform with the requirements of this Act, and shall promptly seek approval from the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the modified nonpoint source water pollution program.

[12] That, prior to approval by the EPA Administrator, nothing shall diminish the force and effect of the requirements of this Act.

Section II: Severability

If any provision of this Act, or the application of that provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application of that provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, is not affected thereby.

Section III: Citizen Suit Provision

Any citizen of the United States may bring suit in State court to enforce any provision of this Act, and shall not be liable for attorney fees, damages, or any other financial penalties unless grounds for the suit have been determined to be of a frivolous nature by the court of jurisdiction. Citizens who prevail in such suits shall be awarded attorney fees and any other damages or expenses incurred in the preparation of legal documents, expert testimony, participation in administrative appeals or other administrative processes, and all other reasonable costs associated with necessary legal actions, as determined by the court of jurisdiction.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This measure amends Oregon law by imposing new restrictions on management of private, state and federal forest lands in Oregon. The principal requirements of the measure are:

In order to implement the measure, one year from enactment, the Board of Forestry is required to prescribe timber harvest methods that conform with the requirements noted above, and that also: (a) provide habitat for species dependent on structural and compositional diversity on at least 50 percent of each harvest unit; (b) prohibit the on-site burning of slash; (c) minimize use of heavy equipment and roads; (d) maximize natural regeneration and replanting of a diversity of native tree species; and (e) encourage the use of highly skilled forest management staff in planning, implementing and monitoring forest operations.

The measure expands existing written plan requirements to all timber harvest operations.

For purposes of this measure, any waters of the state where timber harvest occurs or could occur are deemed navigable waters, thereby subject to the water quality standards and requirements of the federal Water Pollution Control Act and the federal Water Pollution Prevention Act.

The state must modify its existing water quality management programs to be consistent with this measure and request approval of the modifications from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The measure allows any United States citizen to sue in state court to enforce the requirements of the measure. The citizen plaintiff is not liable for attorney fees, damages, or penalties unless the court finds the action frivolous. If the citizen plaintiff prevails, the court is required to award attorney fees, expenses, and any other costs and damages to the citizen plaintiff.

*Basal area is the cross-sectional area of the tree 4.5 feet above the ground. For example, the cross-sectional area of an 11-inch tree is 0.66 square feet.
Committee Members:Appointed by:
Gary KutcherChief Petitioners
James MusumeciChief Petitioners
John BeuterSecretary of State
Howard SohnSecretary of State
Kathleen BeaufaitMembers of the Committee

(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

CONSERVE OREGON'S HERITAGE

Vote YES on Ballot Measure 64!

Sadly, Oregon continues to suffer from massive clearcutting of our native forests. Dozens of native species of fish, including coho salmon and steelhead, may not survive the latest onslaught of forest destruction.

A broad panel of scientists empowered to investigate threats to native fish, plants and wildlife have called for an end to further destruction of Oregon's native forests and wildlife, Yet, clearcutting on private, state and federal forests in Oregon continues at a drastic pace.

There is a better way to manage Oregon's forests. Forward-thinking Oregonians who care about conserving the beauty of Oregon, have shown that wood products can be produced without needlessly destroying our forests.

Foresters using SELECTIVE LOGGING have proven that we can achieve a WIN-WIN SOLUTION by ECONOMICALLY PRODUCING FOREST PRODUCTS WHILE KEEPING OUR FORESTS HEALTHY. They have learned to do so WITHOUT THE USE OF DANGEROUS AND DESTRUCTIVE PRACTICES like clearcutting or the use of toxic chemicals.

Oregonians do NOT have to decide between jobs and the environment.This fall, Oregonians can choose to have forestry jobs AND healthy forests by voting YES on Ballot Measure 64.

By passing Measure 64, we can provide protection for clean drinking water, abundant fish and wildlife, unsurpassed recreational opportunities AND support a sustainable forest products industry. Oregon voters can choose to maintain--and pass on to future generations--the quality of life that we cherish. We can promote safe jobs in the woods AND healthy forests to work in. We can conserve and restore what we love best about Oregon--OUR NATIVE FORESTS!

OREGONIANS CAN CONSERVE OREGON'S MAGNIFICENT OLD GROWTH FORESTS FOR OUR CHILDREN TO ENJOY.

Thousands of Oregonians helped put Measure 64 on the ballot. We are tired of seeing hillside after hillside devastated by the outmoded practice of clearcut logging. We know that selective logging works. We know that in order for Oregon to avoid massive soil erosion, mudslides and flooding, we must maintain and restore our native forests.

Ballot Measure 64 allows Oregonians to place stronger requirements on logging and to prohibit outmoded forest practices, like clearcutting. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT SELECTIVE LOGGING PRODUCES MORE JOBS THAN CLEARCUTTING AND IS HEALTHIER FOR OREGON'S FORESTS AND WILDLIFE.

YOU CAN SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY AND HELP CONSERVE OREGON'S THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISH AND WILDLIFE.

Vote "YES" on Ballot Measure 64!

(This information furnished by Gary A. Kutcher, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Over 100 Members of the U.S. Congress
Want to Ban Clearcutting

5 U.S. Senators and over 100 U.S. Representatives support legislation in the U.S. Congress, the Act to Save America's Forests, which would ban clearcutting on all the National Forests.

Senator Robert Torricelli, Congressional sponsor of the Act to Save America's Forests wrote:

"Roadbuilding and clear-cutting destroys the delicate fabric of plant and animal life found in the forests. The devastating result is species extinction, soil erosion, flooding, declining water quality, and mudslides. In many states, the last runs of wild trout and salmon, so important to our recreational and commercial fishing industries are also threatened, as are the last wild grizzly bears and 1,000 year-old Douglas fir trees.

"To stop this destruction and reestablish the priorities of the Forest Service--from destroying the public's resources to protecting our natural forest resources--I have introduced the Act to Save America's Forests. This legislation would ban clear-cutting in all federally owned forests and prohibit all logging on 17 million acres of Ancient Forests and other designated areas...

"As the world's leader in protecting the environment, it is the duty of the United States to set an example by preserving the last vestiges of our historic forest resources. As one of the wealthiest nations on earth, how can we call upon developing countries to preserve their rainforests when we cannot protect the last fraction of our own forest heritage? We should lead the world by example, not embarrass ourselves with hypocrisy." (The Record, New Jersey, July 13, 1997)

To end clearcutting on our National Forests, tell your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to SUPPORT THE ACT TO SAVE AMERICA'S FORESTS.

To end clearcutting in Oregon's forests, VOTE YES ON BALLOT 64.

The national coalition leading the campaign to pass the Act to Save America's Forests is:

Save America's Forests
4 Library Court, SE
Washington, DC 20003
www.saveamericasforests.org

The Oregon organization promoting YES on BALLOT 64 is:

OLIFE
454 Willamette St., #211
Eugene, OR 97401

(This information furnished by Carl Ross, Executive Director, Save America's Forests.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

HERBICIDES POLLUTE OUR WATER

How we manage our forest affects our water, health, fish, wildlife, air quality, flood and landslide prevention, recreation, and more. All these are essentials of Life!

Our Northwest forests are some of the richest ecosystems in the world--rich in what Robert Costanza and colleagues define as "free ecologic services provided by nature," or "natural capital." (Nature, magazine, 5/15/97) The authors estimate the world value of these natural assets at 3 TRILLION DOLLARS, or twice the gross world product. We tend to think that a dead tree is worth more than a live one. It is not; deforestation is expensive.

For example, every time a log truck emerges from a clearcut, leaving an ugly scar on the land and silt in our waterways, the salmon are diminished.

Forests filter water, ancient forests most perfectly, saving millions of dollars in treatment. Portland's Bull Run watershed has been protected by an Act of Congress for this reason.

When the assault of clearcutting is compounded by the shocking abuse of herbicide "treatment," water, fish animals and people all stand to be sickened. Many of these herbicides can cause cancer, birth defects, mutations, neurological damage, hormone disruption and/or contamination of breast milk. (Although DDT was banned in 1972, it was still found five years later in all 1500 samples of breast milk tested in a 1977 EPA study.

There is no new water. It is continuously recycled through various stages of the hydrologic cycle. When groundwater is contaminated, it may never be cleaned up. Like our bloodstream, the oceans, rivers and streams are Earth's arteries, veins and capillaries, carrying nourishment (and poison?) to every cell.

When Secretary of State Phil Keisling was a reporter for the Willamette Week, he wrote a six-part expose of herbicide use in Oregon called "The Spraying of Oregon." (12/3//79 through 1/14/80) He concluded that the questionable safety of herbicides rests with the politicians and the voters. This ballot Measure gives us a chance to assume that responsibility.

Vote Yes on Measure 64!

For life,

Barbara Kelley, Director

Save Our ecoSystems, Inc. (SOS)

(This information furnished by Barbara Kelley, Save Our ecoSystems (SOS).)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

We need to be aware of the fact that we "all live downstream," and that chemical poisons we use in our forests eventually make their way into our topsoil and drinking water and thus into
our bodies. Already, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, over one half of Oregon's streams are too polluted to support aquatic life! We can not afford to wait while the cumulative effects of these chemicals in our earth, water and bodies continues to take their toll.

After an area has been clearcut, the replanting of trees is accompanied by the application of chemical herbicides to suppress competing vegetation. As soil erodes, these toxins enter the watershed, streams and rivers, where they contribute to the destruction of native fish. The chemical poisons become lodged in the topsoil of farms and hence in the foods that we eat. They also pollute our reservoirs, and thus our drinking water, since significant amounts of these chemicals evade the best efforts of our water treatment systems.

If these herbicides are dangerous, then why is their widespread use allowed? Unfortunately, even after studies demonstrate that these substances are hazardous to humans, the Environmental Protection Agency still allows their use if the benefits of such use outweighs the "economic, social and environmental costs."

Forest Service studies have shown that manual methods of managing competing vegetation are at least as effective as chemical means, are environmentally viable, and of course, provide jobs in our forests.

If you place a frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. If, however, the frog is put in cool water which is then slowly brought to a boil, the frog will not notice the change and will remain until it boils to death. Even though we as individuals may not notice personal symptoms of environmental poising, we can read the early warning signs and save ourselves before it is to late.

"Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice."

--Will Durant

(This information furnished by Gavin McComas, Sundance Natural Foods.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

MEASURE 64 STIMULATES ECONOMIC DIVERSITY

Has anyone calculated how many jobs would be gained by the passage of Measure 64? Oregon has already started to shift from a monolithic economy, dependent upon timber, to a healthier, more diverse economy. The economic picture shifts continually, like a kaleidoscope, as some businesses fail and new ones start up.

Enterprising Oregonians have started and sustained businesses requiring an intact environment such as wilderness expeditions, environmental camps, country inns and restaurants, wildlife photography, river guiding, and more.

Imagine the thrill of children from the inner city on seeing herons feeding their young high in the trees or salmon spawning in a wild scenic river. They don't want to see our ugly clearcuts.

Tourism is now Oregon's third largest industry and is closing in on second.

Other related jobs on the increase: brush control to replace toxic herbicides, the recycling of paper and the manufacture of recycled papers and paper products, greeting cards and calendars printed on recycled paper, the list goes on...

We are sure to hear that less clearcutting will mean less tax money for education. It is bad policy that extracts funding for schools from clearcutting, selling our children's birthright (healthy forests) to the highest bidder.

With Measure 64, selective logging will continue to fund education and will result in healthier, more sustainable forest.

Another source: fundraising for schools could be the province of non-profit organizations that would give tax write-offs for donations for education.

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt reported that "fully a quarter of the world's wild mammals are now considered threatened with extinction." He stated that we face "a looming catastrophe of almost biblical proportions," and that "habitat loss and degradation are primarily responsible of this threat." (Internet, 10/3/96)

Additionally, nearly 34,000 ferns and seed producing species of plants now face extinction, according to the World Conservation Union.

Ask any schoolchild if s/he wants her or his education supported by habitat destruction. Please vote for their futures, and ours.

Vote YES on 64!

For life,

Barbara Kelley

Save Our ecoSystems (SOS)

(This information furnished by Barbara Kelley, Save Our ecoSystems (SOS).)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
SUPPORT MEASURE 64

Once a big family was given a farm. The Giver said, "Take care of this place and it will take care of you." This farm had everything: fertile fields and forests, clear lakes and rivers. The people loved their farm, worked hard, and made a decent living. They fished, cut trees to build homes and boats, and planted crops, keeping some fields and forests fallow--for the future.

Years went by. The times changed. Everything became faster. Cars, machines, communications, business. Everyone hurried. The children's children were impatient and wanted gold. Now.

"Let us get our gold. Time is dead. There may be no future." They plowed all the fields. They cut all the trees, selling the crops and logs to people far across the sea. They received gold. Weather became fickle--dust storms, floods and drought. Fields and forests that had held the soil and water in the ground were gone. The river ran muddy and fish died. The people went to the store with their gold but there was little food, fish, water or wood left.

"Let us plant some food and trees," they said, and they did. Seeds shriveled in the ground and the saplings were eaten by starving animals. The grandchildren tried again. Floods washed their efforts away. Soon nothing was left to eat. Nothing was left to cut. A little girl suggested, "Let's make gold soup... We have plenty of that!"

Scientist Carl Sagan wrote, "It is perilous and foolhardy for the average citizen to remain ignorant about global warming, ...ozone depletion, air pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, acid rain, topsoil erosion, ...deforestation, ...How can we affect national policy--or even make intelligent decisions in our own lives--if we don't grasp the underlying issues?"

Consider bettering our forest practices and returning more jobs to the forest.

Please vote YES on Measure 64,

MG Hudson

(This information furnished by M. G. Hudson, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

NUCLEAR POWER
DEVELOPED
DURING THE 1950'S

DDT
USED EXTENSIVELY
DURING THE 1950'S

RAW INDUSTRIAL WASTE
DUMPED INTO RIVERS
DURING THE 1950'S

BLACK AMERICANS
DENIED CIVIL RIGHTS
DURING THE 1950'S

FEDERAL AID FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
TERMINATED
DURING THE 1950'S

HUNDREDS OF FISH-KILLING DAMS
BUILT
DURING THE 1950'S

CLEARCUT LOGGING
DEVELOPED
DURING THE 1950'S

CLEARCUTTING IS NOT
STATE-OF-THE-ART
FOREST SCIENCE

VOTE YES
ON BALLOT MEASURE 64

(This information furnished by Richard I. Bowden, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

We can not sit by and wait for the timber corporations to modify their practices. Our public lands are being cut, and 97% of the cutting is clearcutting. People are outraged and surprised when I tell them state law requires that we leave only two trees standing per acre. Many Oregonians are under the impression that clearcutting has stopped. Don't believe the lies.

The timber corporations have alarmed forest product workers by saying Measure 64 will put the timber industry out of business. On the contrary, Measure 64 is about sustainable forestry. Selective logging is labor intensive. While clearcutting provides only one job for every 550 acres, selective logging provides one job per 25 acres.

If we are going to acknowledge the importance of logging in our state's economy, we also need to acknowledge the damaging effects the practice of clearcutting has played. Deforestation is a key factor in the decline of wild native salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Clearcutting is a major cause of soil erosion and turbidity, which in turn, cover and suffocate salmon eggs. Chemical herbicides and pesticides in our watersheds are another major factor in the decline of our native fish.

The timber corporations need to own up to their role in the loss of 72,000 fishing jobs in this region, over the past 30 years. Clearly, the issue for the timber corporations is not sustainable jobs for Oregonians. The issue is cash to line their pocket books.

If the timber corporations were truly concerned about the economy of our state, they would voluntarily stop exporting our raw logs. They would voluntarily stop the clearcutting, in favor of responsible, sustainable logging. They are not. It is our responsibility as the citizens of Oregon, to take control of our beautiful and valuable natural resources. Vote Yes on 64.

(This information furnished by Jill Krymkowski.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

God's beauty is for sale in Oregon. Industrial logging has become the norm, and God's forests pay the price. I have postponed my personal goal of studying environmental law to fight for Oregon's beautiful natural heritage; our forests and our fish. We must all join in the fight to end the decimation of our land.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act was passed in 1971, before the advent of the scientific evidence linking landslides to irresponsible forest practices. This outdated legislation only requires leaving two trees standing per acre, be they dead or alive. That's it. Two trees. Appropriately, 94% of all landslides in Oregon are directly linked to this practice of clearcut logging.

Measure 64 requires leaving 60-70 well-distributed trees per acre. This will keep the root systems intact, holding the soil in place, thereby relieving the conscience of the logging industry for the adverse effects that landslides cause; i.e. human death and destruction of private property.. Eroded soil covers salmon eggs, ultimately suffocating them, and aiding in the decline of our fishing industry.

Another important factor in the decline of Oregon's signature fish is the indiscriminate use of herbicides and pesticides on our forested lands. These chemicals wind up in our streams, causing salmon to move more sluggishly, making them more susceptible to predators. These chemicals have also been found in every watershed in Oregon. We drink those chemicals. "Fewer than 10% of the approximately 70,000 chemicals now in commercial use have been tested for their potential adverse effects on the nervous system and only a handful have been evaluated thoroughly, according to the National Research Council" (Bodiesin Protest: Environmental Illness and the Struggle over Medical Knowledge, 1997). A healthy forest needs no chemical sprays. A healthy forest is not a Douglas Fir farm. A healthy forest needs no chemicals, and neither does a healthy person.

Vote Yes on 64. It is the clearcut alternative.

(This information furnished by Faith Baitland.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

I support the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (Measure 64) because I see that it is a way for us to get a message through to a timber industry that has been irresponsible in its forest practices and unresponsive to feedback to that effect. When corporations work in our state, they have a responsibility to serve our community -- not just their shareholders and customers. This state is our home, and when the timber industry is turning our forests into desert as well as eliminating good jobs (not only within the timber industry itself, but also in the fishing and tourism industries) it is time for us to send a clear message of discontent and a specific plan for reform. See for yourself that Measure 64 fits the bill on both counts.

I have spent three and a half months going door to door organizing and raising thousands of dollars for Measure 64 and helping collect 99,420 signatures to get it on the ballot. I have seen firsthand that the issue of clearcutting is one of the most visible symptoms of what has happened to our community as we've lost touch with our responsibilities as stewards of the environment and leaders for social justice. We need to overcome the misinformation and reclaim these responsibilities to keep the short-sighted, money-hungry few from destroying our lands and sabotaging the availability of decent, honorable work. We need to take a stand for speaking and having our voices heard.

It's been difficult to get the straight story on the effects of current logging practices, and harder to have dissenting feedback considered seriously. I strongly encourage you to find out for yourself how we have been mislead, and then make some noise with letters to the editor, street art, and talking up the issue. Each of us counts.

(This information furnished by Matthew Pflantzbaum.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

The first time I saw a clearcut I was driving to the Oregon coast. I was appalled at the destruction. The Pacific Northwest's richly diverse forests are being devastated by the irresponsible practice of clearcut logging, creating big profits for the timber corporations with no regard for the effects everybody suffers. Clearcutting depletes our soil, contributes to landslides, degrades water quality with unsafe pesticides, and destroys habitats of endangered species.

The timber corporations have not created sustainable employment for Oregon's timber workers. They blame environmental concerns for employment decline, when realistically more jobs are lost to raw log exports and the automation of new mills. According to the Oregon State Department of Employment, advances in technology cost a direct work force reduction of 13,800 jobs from 1980 to 1988, while output grew by almost 20%. Some claim they work for forest health, when really they work for forest wealth.

Another mistruth is that timber corporation's replant "forests" after a clearcut. Timber corporations replace diverse forests with over planted monoculture Douglas Fir tree farms. A tree farm is not a forest; it is intended to be clearcut and replanted again and again for maximum profit, yielding low quality wood. Overplanting forces as many as 900 trees per acre to compete for the nutrients nature provided for 300 trees per acre. This depletes and overworks the soil, causing more erosion. Trees planted at the same time grow at the same rate, resulting in 100% canopy above the forest, creating a biological desert on the forest floor where nothing grows. This is not a forest. This is not a sustainable logging practice. This is profit.

Ballot measure 64 creates a sustainable forest through selective logging techniques. It insures the move to responsible logging, protecting the 3% remaining old growth, and bans the use of unsafe pesticides. This is not too much to ask. Enough damage has been done at everyone's expense.

VOTE YES ON 64!

(This information furnished by Jenn Rawling.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

BALLOT MEASURE 64 WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONMENT!

The Estimate of Financial Impact prepared by the State of Oregon for Ballot Measure 64 is inaccurate and incomplete. The State's financial estimate makes the following unrealistic assumptions:

Assumptions regarding the rate of harvest--There is no credible basis for the Department of Forestry's assumptions that result in a predicted 60-65% reduction in harvest volume. With favorable prices, harvesters will simply increase the acreage selectively logged to get equal timber volume. Revenues to Oregon schools and counties should remain about the same.

There is NO basis for the Department of Forestry's assumption that the measure prohibits thinning. Measure 64 actually promotes thinning and selective logging as alternatives to clear cutting. The measure DOES NOT EXCLUDE "clumping" of leave trees, leaving adequate small openings to facilitate natural regeneration of trees.

The State's analysis fails to account for significant cost savings associated with more responsible forest practices required by Measure 64--Clearcutting passes on huge externalized costs to the public to restore the environmental damage to roadways, clean water supplies, watershed condition, and fish. The worst stream conditions in Oregon are found in heavily logged areas, while the best stream conditions are in wilderness streams or lands using selective logging techniques like those required under Measure 64.

The 1996 storms affected areas that have been subject to very high levels of logging and roadbuilding in recent decades, particularly the 1980s. The results of clearcutting have been devastating. Federal, state and county governments had to pay millions of dollars to clear roads of mudslides and debris from clearcuts.

By eliminating clearcutting and chemical herbicide use, Measure 64 will significantly reduce expenditures by federal, state, and municipal agencies related to water quality management, fisheries restoration, reservoir dredging, and other costs associated with repairing ecological damage. The State's economic analysis of Measure 64 completely overlooks these cost savings.

Many individuals, municipalities and businesses suffered financially because of clearcut landslides. For example, the city of Salem, also located in Oregon, had to spend $700,000 on temporary pretreatment facility, and $200,000 treating turbid water and implementing water-use restrictions when high levels of turbidity from cutover watersheds shut their water delivery down. Private industry suffered as well. Mitsubishi Corporation, which relies on pure water for its processes, spent over $2 million when the city's water system shut down.

(This information furnished by John Talberth, Director, Forest Guardians.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

OREGON: DEFENDING OUR LIBERTY

Our children and grandchildren have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Does this not include clean air, pure water, and fertile soil? Healthy forests, rivers, and streams guarantee essential rights for future generations of Americans.

How much longer will we allow the timber industry to steal our forests and watersheds at taxpayers' expense? A few corporations and property owners are depriving us of our property rights: the right to sources of clean water, protection from flooding, and quality of life. And, the right to fishing, hunting, and camping in Oregon's living forests and wilderness.

A majority of Oregonians are paying for the profits of the corporate timber minority:

­ Paying with a decline in property values.

­ Paying with higher proportional taxes, landslide and flood insurance costs.

­ Paying through lost fisheries and recreation,

­ And, sometimes, paying with their lives.

How much more desecration can we tolerate? Even the experts cannot predict the probability (let alone the certainty) that our species will survive current levels of environmental destruction.

LIKE BIG TOBACCO, BIG TIMBER HAS SOLD US A PACK OF LIES

They told us:

­ They would be forced out of business if we banned the wigwam burner.

­ Logging has nothing to do with erosion, flooding or landslides.

­ They are planting six trees for every one that they cut.

­ Exporting raw logs is good for Oregon's economy.

­ They are cutting sustainably.

­ It's a renewable resource.

­ Clearcutting is necessary.

­ They never cut and run.

­ They care about jobs.

NONE OF THESE IS TRUE!

Measure 64 is not perfect but it's a step in the right direction. We can always improve it later. We'll be back with another bill. A stronger bill. But if we fail to protect ourselves now from further devastation, we will lose something irreplaceable in the interim. We will lose another piece of our future.

Save our constitutional rights, and the rights of our children. Vote yes on 64.

(This information furnished by Tim Hermach, Native Forest Council.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

The Oregon Sierra Club notes the following facts as reasons to vote for Measure 64:

The Sierra Club has endorsed Measure 64 as its protections for Oregon's forests, salmon runs, drinking water, and human life are timely and appropriate proposals in the public interest of all citizens of Oregon.

(This information furnished by George B. Hutchinson, Oregon Sierra Club.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

LOGGING PUBLIC LANDS DESTROYS WILDLIFE

CLEARCUTS ALSO IMPACT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

In the Diamond Lake Ranger District of the Umpqua National Forest, 10,000 log trucks of public timber is being sold at bargain prices, much of it from Roadless Areas that Oregonians use for recreation. The Umpqua National Forest is selling 48 million board feet of timber (that's approximately 10,000 logging trucks) as part of the Upper North and Warm Springs Timber Sales. Similar, giant logging operations are going on across public lands in Oregon.

This particular area contains numerous roadless areas over 1,000 acres, in close proximity to one another. These roadless areas are near the wilderness areas of the Oregon Cascade Recreation Area, Mt. Thielsen Wilderness, Mt. Bailey roadless area and Crater Lake National Park, all popular recreation destinations in the Umpqua National Forest.

If the Forest Service succeeds, every one of these small but significant roadless areas will be gone in just a few years. The two proposals just released, Warm Springs and Upper North timber sales, will log within the Upper Mountain Meadows, Calapooya Ridge, Dread and Terror Ridge, and White Mule Creek roadless areas.

Logging will occur right over two recreational hiking trails, trail #1461 on Dread and Terror ridge, and trail #1442 that climbs up the Calapooya ridge. Another area will be logged next to the North Umpqua hiking trail, the most popular trail on the forest.

Both Warm Springs and Upper North timber sales log within Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, effecting numerous owl nesting sites. The sales will also degrade habitat for the American Martin and Pileated Woodpeckers, indicator species for old-growth habitat. But what the Forest Service doesn't want to admit is the impact on the Wolverine.

The wolverine is a very rare, State of Oregon Threatened Species, and VERY SENSITIVE TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE. In the winter of 1997, a Wolverine den was discovered within the Mt. Thielsen wilderness, next to the timber sale project areas. On March 23, 1998, an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist, wrote: "This is the second year of helicopter den surveys for wolverine on the Umpqua National Forest. Last year we were successful in locating tracks and a den in the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness the first week in March.... This year we found wolverine type tracks but no den was located..." However, "just west/northwest of Mt. Thielsen" tracks were discovered, and the biologists were "sure they were wolverine." The entire Warm Springs timber sale area is likely within the home range of this wolverine.

This is the beginning of the end for these rare roadless areas and the many species of wildlife that live there. These are PUBLIC LANDS PLANNED FOR CLEARCUTTING. These pristine lands are likely to be completely logged within just a couple of decades.

IT'S TIME TO PROTECT THE LAST OF OUR SCENIC LANDS AND THE WILDLIFE THAT DEPEND ON THEM FOR HABITAT.

CONSERVE OREGON'S FORESTS AND WILDLIFE!

VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 64!

(This information furnished by Matthew Watkins, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Weed tree? A weed is an unwanted plant in a garden or a field even if it tastes good or has beautiful flowers. Madrone or dogwood or oak as weeds? A forest doesn't have weed trees because it isn't a garden or a field. But the idea of weed tree does go with clearcutting, the deliberate destruction of forest.

Clearcutting takes out everything. It strip mines the mountains for trees-- bulldozing, burning, poisoning. Just get out what is immediately wanted and clear the land for tree plantation. Not reforesting, but tree plantationing-- with all the hazards of a single species crop, and with the extermination of other species that may or may not become wanted in the future. It devastates the forest and the food web in the soil. It gets rid of the forest and forest workers' jobs. It has produced immediate short term economic gain for a few at the expense of the long term economic and biological health of the rest of us.

One example. The Pacific Yew was a weed tree. The wood was valued only by builders of wooden yachts. They would try to salvage a tree or two before it was cut and burned as slash. Then somebody found that the bark has a compound that is effective in treating cancer. The frog was kissed. Pacific Yew, weed tree, became a valuable resource. Lesson: Forests have frogs. Clearcuts don't.

Measure 64 will change the way forest products are obtained and used so that Oregon's forest will again become a selectively cut, living mix that will preserve forests, jobs, and health. It will extend to forest lands the provisions of existing federal and state water quality laws that have been applied to urban, industrial, and farm land for decades to protect water quality there and for downstream users. It will make a better life for all Oregonians.

Vote yes on measure 64. Your grandchildren will thank you.

(This information furnished by Colin King, Corvallis Organic Gardening Club.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Each year our summer vacation takes us to a lake for a few days of living by the fire, of watching the wild birds and of paddling across the still water at dawn. How full of life is the lake: trout leap for insects, osprey hover and dive for fish, fishermen and women cast in the falling light of dusk. Reassuring is the great blue heron, prehistoric and majestic, in its flight over the marshes. We Oregonians seek nature as an unguent to our plastic lives whether it is hiking in a wilderness area, strolling in the city park or planting in our backyard garden.

Traveling through Oregon also requires passage through some of the most ruined and blasted landscapes in the country. That these lands are public or private does not matter. The practice of clearcutting uniformly scars and wounds the land from which I must avert my eyes, like the sight of a maggot-filled gash on a dying dog. Recently a family from France vacationing in the United States asked me what was this scene? Had there been a violent, catastrophic storm? This couldn't have been wrought intentionally? A clearcut does startle the sensibilities when economics aren't the driving mentality

It is my hope, if this bill passes, the non-toxic, environmentally sound program will replicate what I have seen in places like Vermont, where you can drive hours at a time and never see one hillside stripped for the timber harvest. Forest land is more than tree farms. A forest is an ecosystem providing habitat for birds, insects, mammals - the web of mutual dependence that is life itself. The land sustains us in so many ways. It provides food, shelter and recreation, yes, but it revives and teaches us as well. It lives in our consciousness as what we are truly part of. Let selective cutting and it's valuable, life sustaining properties be the foundation for the next century of Oregon history.

(This information furnished by Kimberly Kauffman.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

The Green Party of Oregon supports and endorses Ballot Measure #64.

This ballot measure will help guarantee a future for our forests, and the forest industry.

The present timber harvest practices are contributing to the extinction of the logging industry itself, as well as a multitude of species, including salmon, the contamination of our drinking water, and the destruction of ancient forests which have been evolving for thousands of years. For too long short-term profit gains for the logging industry have outweighed long-term effects for us all.

A well researched and comprehensive sustainable system needs to be implemented and we believe measure 64 is that system.

Clear-cutting and chemical spraying destroys our quality of life as well as the forest creatures lives. Destroying the last and most magnificent ancient forests in our country is akin to killing ourselves. The diversity of life in the old-growth forests is astounding and of boundless benefit to us. A single tree in the ancient forest may shelter as many as 1,500 invertebrates. These forests may hold the clue to an important scientific discovery because of the vast storehouse of genetic information that have evolved for millions of years. They also help regulate the earth's climate and protect watersheds.

A single acre of temperate forest gives off more than 6 tons of oxygen every year. Common sense tells us it's important to save these forests from destruction.

Time is of the essence. Don't expect the legislators to come up with a sustainable plan. There is too much pressure from the logging industry.

Sustainable forestry is profitable, and is the only way to ensure a future for us and for the forest products industry.

The time is now. Help save Oregon's beautiful forest and our quality of life! Beware of slick ads with misinformation against this measure! Listen to your heart and do what's right.

Vote YES on 64!

(This information furnished by Pam Driscoll, Green Party of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

The word "PROFIT" has been replaced by the word "GREED". Big business keeps getting bigger and it's "GREEDY NEED FOR "MORE" is ever expanding. When will it end? Just when is enough? Is it necessary to destroy everything to make a buck?...forests, animals, birds, plant life, water ways, our health....just so some 'OUT OF FOCUS GREEDY GROUP' can keep expanding it's need for "MORE'? MORE MONEY, MORE POWER........MORE, MORE, MORE.

And so, after it's all over and the "GREEDY ONES" die what can they take with them? (nothing) On the other hand when they die what will they leave? (something?) It apparently doesn't matter that they will leave a planet in very serious trouble. A planet that, with intelligent careful planning, could have supported the 'PROFIT' necessary for the needs of the ever expanding population...But it cannot support the "GREED".!!! Wake up......Grow up......Pull your act together! Look up the words "SHARE, CARE, ENOUGH, PATIENCE, RESPECT, HONOR, HONESTY (ESPECIALLY HONESTY) in the Dictionary.

Remember........."ONLY A MAD DOG WOULD FOUL IT'S OWN BED" And since we only have ONE planet to foul.....THEN WHAT?

(This information furnished by Doak Roberts, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

CLEARCUTTING IS BAD FOR RECREATION AND TOURISM.

SUPPORT BALLOT MEASURE 64 FOR HEALTHY FORESTS AND A HEALTHY ECONOMY

Tourism employs more people than does the timber industry. In 1996 travelers in Oregon spent over $4.5 billion, a 36% increase since 1991. Although Oregon ranks just 30th among the 50 states in state park acreage, Oregon ranks fifth nationally in day-use attendance at state parks. Also, the number of out-of-state visitors has increased 46% since 1991, and Oregon has the highest ratio of visitors per state park acre. We don't need more clearcuts, we need more parks and recreation opportunities.

It's been estimated that by the year 2000, hunting, fishing, and recreation will provide 32 times more revenue and 37 times more jobs in national forests than logging will. Yet logging takes a larger share of federal expenditures!

At the same time that unprecedented numbers of people want to experience wilderness, wilderness is shrinking. Currently, in Oregon, less than 5% of our old growth forests are still standing, approximately half of what we had 10 years ago. The devastation continues daily as logging companies are subsidized by taxpayer money to clearcut public lands.

Each year, the U.S. Forest Service loses hundreds of millions of dollars in its timber program. Not only are trees being sold below cost, but also the Forest Service typically reimburses
timber companies for building logging roads. Let's stop these tax-payer subsidies for wealthy corporations.

According to a 1995 study by Voice of the Environment (VOTE), "More than $100 million worth of public's trees are stolen every year. Yet despite repeated reprimands from Congress, the glare of negative press and an out cry from the environmental community, the Forest Service has failed miserably to reduce timber theft, according to several U.S. Forest Service employees."

THE COMBINATION OF TIMBER THEFT AND CLEARCUTTING IS NOT ONLY DESTROYING OREGON'S FORESTS, IT IS ALSO THREATENING VITAL INDUSTRIES--LIKE TOURISM, RECREATION AND FISHING--AT THE COST OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.

Measure 64 will insure the health of our forests, the prosperity of the industries dependent on our natural resources and a future with old growth forests for everyone to enjoy.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 64!

(This information furnished by Trisha Dehen, Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Position of the Oregon Society of American Foresters

Ballot Measure 64

The Oregon Society of American Foresters strongly opposes Measure 64. It is unneeded, excessive and, in large part, contrary to the interests of Oregonians.

The 1,200 Oregon Society of American Foresters members include the field foresters, researchers, administrators and educators who help manage the 29.5 million acres of public and
private forests in Oregon. We work for federal, state or local governments; for universities; for small and large landowners; and for small business and large corporations. We hold a variety of professional viewpoints, but our opposition to Measure 64 is virtually unanimous.

We oppose Measure 64 because it:

The Oregon Society of American Foresters believes that active professional management of Oregon's forests can produce the forest products, fish, wildlife, clean water, and healthy environment that Oregonians desire. Measure 64 is an irresponsible and excessive proposal that moves Oregon away from, not toward, sustainable forestry practices.

For more information, contact us at http://www.forestry.org or at 4033 SW Canyon Road, Portland, OR 97221.

(This information furnished by Julie Stangell, Chair, Oregon Society of American Foresters.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

My family has managed forestland in southern Oregon since the mid 1940s using selective cutting on a sustained-yield basis. These 48,000 acres in the Lakeview area have recently been audited by the leading international forest overview agency (Scientific Certification Systems) and are certified as a well-
managed forest. Along with other serious flaws, ballot measure 64 doesn't have the flexibility for the wide variety of forestlands in the state and is incompatible with the independent audit process.

Clearcut doesn't mean what you think: The meaning of the word clearcut as defined in this measure is very different from the one commonly understood. Most people visualize a clearcut as an area of land mostly or entirely cleared of trees. According to subsection 6 of this measure, an acre of land west of the Cascades having 69 trees greater than 11 inches in diameter is considered a clearcut. East of the Cascades it's 59 trees greater than 10 inches in diameter. In practice, acreage with even more trees can fall into this category because of the basal (cross-sectional) area requirements. There are areas of forestland in Oregon where the soil and climate won't support the minimum density required by this measure, yet such land can still ecologically yield timber in smaller quantities.

Trained forester judgment is lost: The east- and west-side stocking levels, as defined in section 6, are arbitrary. The forest density supportable on an acre of land is dependent on soil type and quality, terrain, micro-climate, and tree specie mix. Only by understanding the specific characteristics of a location can a trained forester determine how best to manage it for biodiversity and timber production. It is senseless to lump all the land in the state into two categories because doing that ignores the variety and diversity of Oregon's many forests.

(continued)

(This information furnished by Truman Collins Jr., Collins Pine Company.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Incentive to cut larger trees: Measure 64 bans cutting trees 30 inches or larger in diameter. It also disallows counting trees larger than 20 inches for their full basal area. This will result in an incentive to cut trees after they reach 20 inches but before they reach 30 even if it is to the benefit of both the ecosystem and the landowner to let them grow.

Punishes environmentally responsible landowners: This measure applies to privately owned land as well as public. It is unfair to outlaw the harvest of any tree over 30 inches because it penalizes those who have managed their land ecologically. Modern environmental forestry practice, particularly in pine forests, involves harvesting trees as they reach old age when they are often over this size limit. If this measure passes, ecologically motivated landowners will have that investment taken away from them and will be discouraged from letting trees age in the future.

Applicable areas not clearly defined: Although required tree density per acre is clearly spelled out, how the boundaries of an acre are determined is not. There are many ways to partition an irregular piece of land into acre-sized chunks. Since this measure provides for lawsuits against owners not following its requirements, it is important that they be able to determine if they are in compliance. Even if clarified, all the trees in an area would have to be measured before any could be cut, resulting in time-consuming, unnecessary work.

Labor and safety problems: Measure 64 suggests that its passage would effect an increase in skilled labor due to a reduction in automation. The reverse is likely true along with a marked decrease in safety. Before the availability of machinery, maiming injuries were relatively common among workers preparing logs for transport. While it may seem appealing to employ more people and use fewer machines, it would be more costly and more workers would be put at risk for injury.

(This information furnished by Truman Collins Jr., Collins Pine Company.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 64 is bad for Oregon's forests. This measure is not designed to enhance the sustainability of Oregon's forest. This measure will not lead to healthy forest ecosystems. It will only take the care and nurturing of our forests from scientists and trained professional foresters and transfer it into the court system.

Forests are unique, no two are alike. Many have differences which can be quite apparent or quite subtle. Differences in soils, species mix, topography, and climatic conditions can have varying degrees of impact upon any forest. It takes trained, experienced professionals to scientifically analyze conditions within any forest to determine how it should be managed. Sustainable forestry is the goal, the methods used to achieve that goal must be based upon scientific analysis, not legislation. Arbitrary standards ignore the uniqueness and individual characteristics of a forest. The number of trees required for a sustainable forest on one acre may be decidedly different on another. Sound science should determine this, not legislation.

Measure 64 does not allow the flexibility to properly care for the forest. A case in point would be when a forest is attacked by a bug infestation. A landowner, attempting to stop bug damage by harvesting the affected trees ( as a surgeon might perform surgery to remove a cancer to save a life) could end up with fewer trees than prescribed in Measure 64, thus violating the law and risking loss of the forest. Sound science should determine what the landowner does, not legislation.

Measure 64 is not good for the people nor the forests of Oregon. It will not insure proper forest management, it will only add more regulation. Keep the care of the forests the responsibility of properly trained resource professionals. Use science, not legislation to conserve Oregon's precious forest resource.

Vote NO on Measure 64

(This information furnished by Lee Fledderjohann, Forester; Ken Kendrick, Forester.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

OREGON WOMEN FOR AGRICULTURE

Oregon Women for Agriculture is an all-volunteer group of Oregonians dedicated to educating ourselves and the public about the value of farming and ranching to the economy and the environment.

We strongly oppose Measure 64, the Anti-Logging measure on the November 1998 ballot for the following reasons:

1. The measure is an attempt at micro-management that has no place in public policy or state law. Its forest management provisions and requirements do not constitute responsible stewardship of the land and forests.

2. The unsound forestry practices outlined in the measure would actually cause harm to our forests.

3. The measure's requirements clearly constitute a taking of private property with no compensation.

4. The measure, if approved, would devastate the Oregon timber industry, decrease school funding and cause serious damage to all other segments of the Oregon economy.

5. The measure, if approved, would further damage timber families by taking away their right to log timber from family-owned lands.

We believe, and history shows, that free markets and protection of private property rights are the best way to preserve our land and forests.

We believe that our land and forests are best managed by those who are trained in forest and land management and whose livelihoods depend on that management.

We urge voters to vote no on this radical, unworkable, expensive, and useless measure.

OREGON WOMEN FOR AGRICULTURE

Working together to communicate the story of today's agriculture.

P.O. Box 481 - Dayton Oregon 97114 - 503-243-FARM
(243-3276)

(This information furnished by Jo McIntyre, Oregon Women for Agriculture.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Former Deans Committee

We believe some provisions of Measure 64 raise serious issues under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. States are limited by the United States Constitution from enacting laws in conflict with Federal laws. This Measure pertains to forest practices and water quality standards on a state wide basis.

To the extent Measure 64 changes, limits, or attempts to supersede federal laws pertaining to the forest practices on Federal lands and water quality standards, the measure may not be enforceable under the United States Constitution.

Additionally, Measure 64 is broadly worded, and the precise application of the measure would have to await court action. Thus, we believe the application of this Measure would be unpredictable. If this Measure passed there would be substantial litigation concerning the constitutionality of the Measure.

We provide this information to help fellow voters in understanding this measure. Our comments are designed only to provide objective and careful constitutional analysis of the measure. Collectively we take no position on the other merits of this measure.

Prof. Leroy Tornquist (Chair), Former Dean Willamette College of Law

Rennard Strickland, Dean University of Oregon Law School

Prof. Robert Misner, Former Dean Willamette College of Law

Prof. Emeritus Chapin Clark, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

Prof. Maury Holland, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

Robert Ackerman, Dean Willamette College of Law

David Frohnmayer, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

(This information furnished by Bob Cannon, Treasurer, The Former Deans Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon State Grange Asks You to Vote

NO on Measure 64

The Oregon State Grange is the largest grassroots, rural-based fraternal organization in Oregon and has been active in protecting Oregon for 125 years.

Grange members have always advocated good stewardship of our natural resources. However, Grangers recognize that good stewardship includes the wise use of our renewable resources, such as our forests.

Measure 64 is Bad Management for Oregon's Forests

Every year, Oregon landowners spend millions of dollars in improving the health of their forest and woodlands. Habitat for wildlife is created and maintained, watersheds are protected, and our economy benefits. Measure 64 will end these benefits.

Oregon already has some of the strongest laws in the Nation on forest management practices. Measure 64 will remove many of the benefits of these existing laws.

Measure 64 is Poor Stewardship of Our Forests

Federal and State Forests will be affected by Measure 64, and so will all private forests and woodlands regardless of size. Oregonians have depended on our forests for recreation, building materials, and jobs.

Measure 64 will stop us from protecting our Oregon forests for our children. The future of Oregon requires common sense protection of our natural resources, not radical measures.

Measure 64 Will Hurt Oregon

Read Measure 64 and you will agree with the 24,000 plus members of the Oregon State Grange and vote "NO" on Measure 64.

(This information furnished by Edward L. Luttrell, Oregon State Grange.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 64 will take away the incentive to invest in sustainable forest management on private lands.

In 1921, David T. Mason opened one of the first Pacific Northwest forestry consulting firms. He became an early and vigorous proponent of sustainable forest management. At his urging, a number of far-sighted private timberland owners made long-term investments to ensure that Oregonians would enjoy the benefits of a second generation of productive forests.

Forest investments differ from other investments in that they typically take a very long time to mature. A decision to plant new trees, for example, means investing money today that will not be repaid for fifty years. Long-term forestry investments on private property only make sense if the landowner has some certainty that the timber will be available for harvest when it matures. By limiting future timber management opportunities, Measure 64 removes that certainty, and private timberland owners will have no incentive to make the investments needed to support sustainable forest management.

In short, Measure 64 would take away the economic certainty, the management flexibility and the financial incentives required to practice sustainable forest management.

Seventy-seven years after David T. Mason first began practicing forestry, we at Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. remain proud advocates of sustainable, scientific forest management. We will vote NO on Measure 64, and urge you to do the same.

(This information furnished by Glenn A. Zane, Mark L. Rasmussen, David R. Cox, Kenneth M. Vroman, Bradford R. Seaberg; Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 64

Measure 64 is an attempt by radical extremists to destroy the wood products industry of Oregon. Measure 64 means more lost jobs and poor forest health. Here's why:

Measure 64 is more than a ban on clearcutting, it's a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon

Measure 64 will keep private property owners from logging even one acre

Measure 64 will cripple Oregon's economy

Measure 64 bans the use of pesticides for any reason

Measure 64 will rob landowners of their private property rights

Measure 64 will encourage endless lawsuits against private landowners

Measure 64 is bad for Oregon's citizens and bad for Oregon's environment

(This information furnished by Brad J. Harper, State Coordinator & Legal Counsel, Oregon Lands Coalition.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Ed Schroeder

Oregon State Forester, retired

Chief Forester, Tillamook Burn

Rehabilitation Project

I've devoted my life to improving Oregon's forestlands and I'm proud of the role I played as State Forester overseeing the restoration of the Tillamook Burn, Oregon's most catastrophic wildfire. We mobilized an entire generation of young Oregonians to embrace the forests. We all can be proud of our accomplishment.

That's why I'm urging you to join me in voting NO on Measure 64.

Measure 64 poses a serious threat to the health of Oregon's forests and our economy. Harvest reductions caused by the measure would cost 28,000 Oregonians their timber industry jobs ­ nearly half of all those employed in the industry today. It is poor forest management that would undo all the good things the people of Oregon have done over the years.

One reason I am gravely concerned about Measure 64 is its ban on cutting any tree in the state that is over 30 inches in diameter, even if it is diseased or dead. It would impose a single statewide forestry formula, ignoring Oregon's tremendous diversity of sites, soils and conditions.

Measure 64 would take forest practices out of the hands of scientists, professional foresters and wildlife biologists and put them in the hands of bureaucrats and the courts.

In the name of banning clear cutting, Measure 64 actually bans much more.

It would ban the use of pesticides ­ even in cases of major forest epidemics or insect attacks. Tragically, it would allow forests to be devoured by insects that eat and kill trees, or destroyed by diseases that can be controlled. Moreover, banning the harvest of dead trees and brush-clearing pesticides would increase the size and intensity of wildfires.

The Tillamook Burn taught an earlier generation the price Oregon pays for poor forest management that increases fire danger.

Measure 64 is a virtual ban on all timber harvesting. More than 28,000 forest industry workers ­ men and women who have devoted their lives to nurturing and protecting Oregon's forest ­ would lose their jobs. Families who carefully have managed their forest lands for generations would suddenly be left with nothing.

That's not good for our forest lands and certainly not good for our state. For the sake of Oregon's forests, I urge you to vote NO on Measure 64.

(This information furnished by Ed Schroeder.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Small Woodlands Association is a non-profit organization with thousands of private landowner members who own and manage small tracts of forestland in Oregon. We strongly urge a NO vote on Measure 64.

According to the Oregon State University Extension Service, 43% of private forestland in Oregon is owned not by the big timber corporations, but instead by 166,000 individual private family woodland owners.

Measure 64 is simply too extreme. It's not just a ban on clearcutting. It's actually a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon. Measure 64 will destroy the life-long investments and savings of thousands of small private woodland owners in Oregon.

After years of investing in their property--working hard to plant trees, enhance wildlife habitat and protect water quality, Measure 64 would make it impossible for family woodland owners to manage their own private property--wiping out decades of personal sacrifice and hard work.

Measure 64 would allow outsiders to dictate what Oregon landowners can and cannot do on their own private property.

Measure 64 invites and encourages any person in the United States to file lawsuits against private family forestland owners. It makes it easy for those who sue to collect. But even if an Oregon small private woodland owner wins in court, that family likely would not be reimbursed even for their defense costs. That's wrong! That's unfair.

While we believe initial assessments are far too low--state officials estimate harvests in Oregon will be reduced by a massive 60% to 65%. That's too extreme. The measure 64 bullet shot at the timber industry by extreme preservationists will mortally wound tens of thousands of Oregon small woodland owner families.

The Oregon Small Woodlands Association urges you to vote

NO on Ballot Measure 64.

John Rounds, President

Oregon Small Woodlands Association

(This information furnished by John Rounds, President, Oregon Small Woodlands Association.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Irv Fletcher

Oregon AFL/CIO

As representatives of Oregon's working men and women, the Oregon AFL/CIO strongly encourages you to vote NO on Measure 64.

Measure 64 is an extreme initiative that would hurt our economy and threaten the health of Oregon forests. It would hurt the working families of this state by taking away tens of thousands of jobs.

Measure 64 actually is a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon, not just clearcutting.

Under the measure, state officials estimate harvests in western Oregon would be cut by 60 percent. In eastern Oregon, harvest would drop by 65 percent.

These harvest reductions would cost more than 28,000 Oregonians their forest industry jobs.

As a result of Measure 64, the economic struggles rural Oregon has been enduring for much of the past decade would get even worse. Since 1980, 213 sawmills and panel plants in Oregon have been closed permanently. If Measure 64 passes, even more would close.

The men and women who have devoted their lives to protecting and nurturing Oregon's forests would be left jobless.

But the consequences of Measure 64 would be felt in every community. Experts estimate the measure would cost Oregon's economy $1.6 billion dollars per year in lost payroll alone. That's money that will no longer be circulated at grocery stores, shopping centers or gas stations. Some families would miss their mortgage payments and risk losing their homes.

Unfortunately, the economic devastation caused by Measure 64 also would force many of Oregon's working families to pack up and move somewhere else in hopes of putting their lives back together.

Measure 64 takes forestry practices out of the hands of scientists, professional foresters and wildlife biologists and puts them in the hands of bureaucrats. Under the measure, pesticides could not ever be used in Oregon forests, even in times of a major insect epidemic. This would threaten the health of Oregon forestlands.

The consequences of Measure 64 are extreme. It would ruin the lives of tens of thousands of working men and women and hurt the state's economy. Vote NO on Measure 64.

(This information furnished by Irvin H. Fletcher, President, Oregon AFL-CIO.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 64 directly attacks Oregon's economy, school funding and the livelihood of thousands of men and women.

The proponents of this ill-conceived measure obviously have no idea or care about forest science. They apparently don't care that Measure 64 would have a terrible impact on the health of Oregon's forests and would reduce funding for education by $42 million a year.

Measure 64 basically is a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon, not just clearcutting. It virtually would put the entire forest industry out of business. A state analysis determined that harvests in western Oregon would be reduced by 60 percent. Harvests in eastern Oregon would be cut by 65 percent ... and that's just a beginning.

Those harvest reductions caused by Measure 64 would cause more than 28,000 Oregonians to lose their forest industry jobs. This measure impacts all of Oregon, particularly rural Oregon.

The statistics are staggering. Measure 64 would cost Oregon's economy $1.6 billion per year in lost income. State officials estimate state and local governments -- including schools -- would lose $74 million per year in tax revenue. That doesn't include the income taxes that would be lost.

The ripple effect of this measure also will negatively affect the broad business community and all who are employed therein. Under the measure, an additional 31,000 Oregon jobs outside the forest industry would be lost. For example: banking, insurance, auto sales, retailing, communications, and manufacturers, all would be hit hard by Measure 64.

This measure richly deserves a strong NO on 64 vote from all voters throughout the state.

Submitted by:

Richard M. Butrick

President

Associated Oregon Industries

(This information furnished by Richard M. Butrick, President, Associated Oregon Industries.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

John Rossner ­ Farmer and President

Oregon Farm Bureau

More than 100,000 families in Oregon own forest lands and Measure 64 could change their lives.

Please vote NO on Measure 64.

Measure 64 takes away from private landowners their rights to cut and sell trees they have been growing on their land for decades.

The measure would prohibit these families from ever harvesting most of their timber which would cost them $1.93 billion a year and cost Oregon's economy $1.6 billion a year in lost personal income. Taking personal property without compensation is wrong.

They have worked hard to tend their forests and keep them healthy. For many families the forests are their life blood. For others, they are savings for college or retirement.

Measure 64 ignores the good forest practices already in place. We are already protecting Oregon's forests with stringent laws through Oregon's Forest Practices Act. Banning responsible forest practices risks harming the health and productivity of our forests.

Oregon forests would be in danger if Measure 64 passed. It takes forestry practices out of the hands of scientists, professional foresters and wildlife biologists and puts them in the hands of bureaucrats and the courts.

Pesticide use would be completely banned even in the case of a major infestation in which bugs are killing the forests.

Banning pesticides would increase the risk of wild fires. Dead and diseased trees couldn't be harvested and slash from harvests couldn't be burned on site. These factors increase the danger of forest fires by increasing fuel loading. In addition, the dramatic reduction in timber harvest revenues sharply reduces funding that landowners pay for fighting forest fires.

As if the loss of control of their land wasn't enough, Measure 64 actually encourages activists to file enforcement suits. Anyone, anywhere in the United States could bring a suit against a private land owner to enforce the measure and would not have to pay attorney fees ­ even if he or she loses. It's unfair and it's lopsided.

Measure 64 is unnecessary and has no benefit for Oregon.

Vote NO on Measure 64.

(This information furnished by John Rossner, President, Oregon Farm Bureau.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Neil Goldschmidt

Former Governor

As governor I worked to restore Oregon's fisheries and to keep Oregon's forest lands healthy. Creation of the watershed enhancement program, support for the volunteer led Salmon Trout Enhancement Program, passage of a new State Forestry Act mandating improved logging practices near streams and rivers were all things I was proud to have a part in.

I was just as proud of our effort, by overwhelming statewide ballot, to stop exporting logs from state owned lands to foreign countries.

There remains much to be done and current efforts by our Governor, legislature, public and private land owners will bring enormous resources to bear on opportunities to restore our fisheries.

Measure 64 masquerades as a supporter of that effort. But it is not.

Measure 64 would force harvest reductions of 60% in western Oregon.

Measure 64 would force harvest reductions of 65% east of the Cascades

Measure 64 would mostly take control of the private land of more than 100,000 citizens.

Measure 64 would cost 28,000 of our fellow citizens their jobs.

Measure 64 would cost Oregon's treasury over $200 million annually - funds needed for our local schools.

After these extreme invasive measures on state and private land, which ignore the existing restrictions on logging and requirements for re-forestation, and ignore the best environmental forestry research in the world, what does Measure 64 guarantee about the quality of our forests or the restoration of our fisheries?

Nothing. To the contrary, it would reduce forest diversity and sustainability of Oregon forests.

There is a better way for Oregonians - a way that doesn't put our neighbors out of work, doesn't destroy natural resource values or harm our ability to support our schools. Let's continue working with our scientists, foresters, and grass roots community leadership - with one another - to build our watersheds & fisheries back to health. It's the Oregon way.

Vote No on Measure 64 - its bad news for Oregon.

(This information furnished by Governor Neil Goldschmidt.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Governor Vic Atiyeh

I am concerned about the impact Measure 64 would have on our state. I urge you to vote NO.

Measure 64 has serious economic consequences for Oregon. State officials estimate Measure 64 would force harvest reductions of 60 percent in western Oregon and 65 percent east of the Cascades.

The dramatic drop in harvests would cause more the 28,000 Oregonians who work in the forest products industry to lose their jobs. In addition, more than 100,000 families would lose control of the land they worked so hard to tend.

The measure would cost Oregon's economy:

Measure 64 is portrayed as a ban on clearcutting by its proponents and the media. That seriously oversimplifies the scope and complexity of the measure and seriously understates its impact.

The measure goes far beyond merely prohibiting clearcutting. Measure 64 is actually a ban on almost all timber harvesting, including thinnings and salvage harvesting.

Additionally, Measure 64 ignores what already is being done, including existing regulatory and voluntary protection.

Oregon timber land is subject to state forest practices laws, regulations and monitoring. Already, forest land owners participate in Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. Several land owners have developed Habitat Conservation Plans approved by federal agencies as a long-term commitment to protect and develop habitat for a wide variety of species.

There is no reason to believe Measure 64 would benefit forests, forest workers or our state, as purported by its proponents. To the contrary, it would certainly be harmful because its restrictions would reduce forest diversity, timber supplies and the sustainability of Oregon's valuable forest resources in the long run.

As governor, I worked hard to keep Oregon's economy and forest lands healthy. Measure 64 would hurt Oregon. Vote NO on Measure 64.

(This information furnished by Governor Vic Atiyeh.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

We need experienced foresters managing and guiding Oregon's forests. Measure 64 will NOT do the job. That's why I am opposed and asking you to review this bill carefully and then vote no.

Protection for rivers and streams, wildlife habitat and scenic buffers of trees along our highways has already been enacted into law by previous legislation.

Measure 64 goes too far. It reduces timber harvests in Oregon and would be a real hardship on desperately needed revenues for schools. Oregon schools would lose $42 million in direct revenue including losses to the Common School Fund.

Measure 64 goes far beyond dealing with clearcutting. It would also ban many of the responsible practices that have helped make Oregon forests among the healthiest and most productive in the world.

Furthermore, this measure absolutely prohibits the cutting of any tree over 30 inches in diameter on any acre of land in Oregon, even those trees that are diseased.

I do not like the leeway measure in Measure 64 which permits any person living anywhere in the United States to file lawsuits in Oregon courts against a timber land owner without the risk of paying attorney fees.

Measure 64 ignores the wisdom accrued through many years of experience managing forestlands. It would ban the use of some tools used to benefit the growth of trees.

I'm really concerned about the damage Measure 64 would do. Please vote NO.

Bob Straub

Former Oregon State Governor

(This information furnished by Bob Straub, Former Governor, Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Woodworkers District Lodge 1
International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers

As representatives of Woodworkers District Lodge 1, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers who have devoted their lives to protecting and nurturing Oregon's forests, we are asking you to vote NO on Measure 64.

Measure 64 would cost more than 28,000 Oregonians their forest industry jobs. The measure would have its greatest negative impact on rural Oregon.

We know all too well how much it hurts Oregon's timber- dependent communities when an extreme initiative like Measure 64 is enacted. Since 1980, 213 sawmills and panel plants in Oregon have been closed permanently. Measure 64 would be the nail in the coffin for many of these communities.

More mills and plants would close. 28,000 men and women would lose their jobs. Thousands of Oregon families would be left to wonder how they would put their lives back together.

Oregon's timber-dependent communities would not be the only areas of the state to feel the pain inflicted by Measure 64. Every Oregon community would feel it. An examination of the economic impact of the measure revealed Oregon's economy would lose $1.6 billion dollars per year in lost payroll alone.

Measure 64 actually is a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon, not just clearcutting.

State officials estimate harvests in western Oregon would be cut by 60 percent. In eastern Oregon, harvests would drop by 65 percent. And those estimates are low.

Measure 64 also would threaten the health of Oregon's forestlands. Under the measure, pesticides could not ever be used in Oregon forests, even in times of a major insect epidemic or emergency. It may sound impossible, but it's true. Measure 64 would make it illegal to fight back an insect epidemic with pesticides.

Measure 64 is an extreme initiative that would hurt our economy and threaten the health of Oregon forests. It would hurt the working families of this state by taking away tens of thousands of jobs.

Vote NO on Measure 64.

Chuck Macrae, President

Woodworkers District Lodge 1, IAM and AW

(This information furnished by Chuck Macrae, Woodworkers District
Lodge 1, IAM and AW.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

How you vote on Measure 64 will dictate whether tens of thousands of Oregon workers will keep their jobs and the state's forests will remain healthy and vibrant, or almost all timber harvesting in Oregon will be banned forever.

Presented as a ban on clearcutting, Measure 64 actually bans much more. It's an extreme plan that would prohibit many of the responsible forest practices that protect and nurture the health and productivity of the forests.

Measure 64's definition of a clearcut is so broad that almost all timber harvesting in Oregon, not just clearcutting, would be banned. State officials estimate harvests in Western Oregon will be reduced by 60 percent. In eastern Oregon, harvests would drop by 65 percent. And those estimates are conservative.

Harvest reductions caused by Measure 64 would have a devastating impact on Oregon's economy and working families. It would cost more than 28,000 Oregonians their forest industry jobs -- about half of those employed in the industry today. All told, Measure 64 would cost Oregon's economy $1.6 billion per year in lost personal income.

The greatest negative economic impact would hit rural Oregon. Our rural communities would have to absorb the economic and emotional strain experienced by tens of thousand out-of-work families.

Additionally, Measure 64 would also threaten the health of Oregon forests by banning the responsible use of pesticides and prohibiting the harvest of any tree over 30 inches in diameter on any single acre of land, even if it's diseased or dead. As a result, insect epidemics would go unchecked and forest fires would increase in both size and intensity.

That's right, Measure 64 would dictate what private landowners can do and not do on their own property. It lets government bureaucrats come in and take away from private landowners the right to cut and sell trees they have been growing on their land for decades.

Take a careful look at Measure 64 -- and join us by voting NO and encouraging others to do the same.

Tim Wigley

President, Oregon Forest Industries Council

(This information furnished by Tim Wigley, Oregon Forest Industries Council.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.


ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Terry Witt and Paulette Pyle,

Oregonians for Food and Shelter

Oregon forests are among the healthiest and most productive in the world thanks in part to the responsible use of pesticides. This is a technology we proudly play a role in and have knowledge about. Measure 64 bans all pesticide use on all forestland in Oregon.

"Pesticide" is an umbrella term covering any product used to control insects, vegetation, diseases, rodents or other pests. It even includes disinfectants and mosquito repellents. Banning use of these important tools will have serious consequences for all Oregonians, not just foresters.

Anyone who has traveled across Santiam Pass has seen how devastating an insect attack like the spruce budworm or pine beetle can be. Imagine what Oregon would look like if pesticides could no longer be used to control insect epidemics, tree diseases or invasive and poisonous weeds? Measure 64 takes these safeguards away from forestland managers, both public and private.

While many benefits will be lost if forest pesticides are banned, two that directly affect human lives should be mentioned. First, dead or dying trees from insects and disease create a heavy fuel load in forests. This promotes massive fires resulting in loss of property and lives. Second, utility rights-of-ways, like telephone and electric lines, depend on herbicides to maintain service access through forestlands. Lose these lifelines and again we lose lives.

Insects don't know the difference between forests, farms and your backyard. To them they're all food. With more than half of Oregon's land classified as forests, banning insecticide use will also provide safe harbor for pests like the Japanese beetle or Asian gypsy moth. These insects can plague a state, attacking private property from forests, to crops in rural agriculture, to roses and grass in residential areas.

A ban on pesticides doesn't make economic, environmental or common sense. We urge you to vote no on Measure 64 -- it's senseless and extreme.

(This information furnished by Terry Witt, Paulette Pyle; Oregonians for Food and Shelter.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

OREGON'S FAMILY-OWNED FOREST BUSINESSES URGE
OREGONIANS TO VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURE 64!

The measure actually is a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon, not just clearcutting; even on all private forest land.

State officials estimate harvests in western Oregon will initially be cut by 60 percent. In eastern Oregon, harvests will drop by 65 percent. And those estimates are conservative. Eventually, timber harvest in Oregon would approach zero.

Unnecessary: Oregon's industry operates under strict regulations. The Forest Practices Act limits the size of clearcuts and requires that trees be left to protect rivers and streams, supply wildlife habitat and provide buffers for highways. The Act also requires that the remaining harvested area is quickly reforested with at least 200 young trees per acre. Oregon's forests are well-protected.

Extreme: Measure 64 would define prime forests as clearcuts that couldn't ever be harvested. It also would:

Vote "NO" to keep Oregon's forests healthy, productive and sustainable!

This statement has been endorsed by these family-owned Oregon forest businesses:

Bond Starker, Starker Forests, Inc. Corvallis

Larry and Nat Giustina, Giustina Land & Timber, Eugene

Dan Giustina, Giustina Resources, Eugene

Howard Sohn, Lone Rock Timber Co., Roseburg

Aaron and Marie Jones, Seneca Jones Timber, Eugene

Paul Cole, Rosboro Lumber, Springfield

Gordon Culbertson, Rosboro Lumber Springfield

Dan Dutton, Stimson Lumber Forest Grove/Portland

John Shelk, Ochoco Lumber Company, Prineville

Steve Swanson, Swanson Superior, Glendale/Noti

J.H. Gonyea II, Timber Products, Springfield

Joe Gonyea III, Timber Products, Springfield

Phil and Don-Lee Davidson, Davidson Ind., Mapleton

Lew Krauss, Rough & Ready Lumber Co., Cave Junction

Lynn Herbert, Herbert Lumber, Riddle

Donna Wooley, Eagle's View Management Co., Eugene

(This information furnished by B. Bond Starker, Starker Forests, Inc.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

You've never clear-cut anything. No one in your family works in the timber industry and you can go for months without seeing a 2 by 4. You don't know a Douglas Fir from a Japanese Maple, and don't really care. So why should you vote against Measure 64?

BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK IN THE WOODS TO BE HURT BY MEASURE 64.

The measure absolutely prohibits cutting any tree over 30 inches in diameter on any single acre of land in Oregon, even if it's diseased or dead. Any tree, including that one that keeps threatening to blow down onto your garage. Or the one that is standing right where your new bedroom or deck would go. Or the one next to the road that the county needs to remove to put in a sidewalk.

Measure 64 actually is a ban on almost all timber harvesting in Oregon, not just clearcutting. State officials estimate harvests in western Oregon will be cut by 60 percent. In eastern Oregon,
harvests will drop by 65 percent. And those estimates are conservative. If Measure 64 passes, Oregon will have to import most of its wood products from another country because we could no longer harvest and replant Oregon forests.

Importing lumber would cost you more money. It would cost more when you remodel your house, rents would be higher for the apartment your son or daughter will be moving into, and costs for construction of houses, schools, stores and offices will increase.

The measure requires that 70 11-inch diameter trees be left on every single acre (60 10-inch trees in eastern Oregon). In other words, before the highway department could widen a road, they'd have to figure out how to leave the necessary number of trees. The power company wouldn't be able to run its lines through the forests unless it could leave the minimum number of trees untouched.

And forget about any more farmland being created. Measure 64 essentially would prohibit taking the trees off so that crops could be planted.

The measure encourages the use of farmland for development. Active farms are about the only land in Oregon without trees. If Measure 64 passes, those active farms will be the first place to consider for new development, since there is no realistic way to clear land for housing while leaving 70 11-inch diameter trees on every acre (60 10-inch trees in eastern Oregon).

In a war, it's called collateral damage when innocent non-combatants are killed or wounded. Measure 64 will cause collateral damage in every part of Oregon.

Vote NO on Measure 64.

(This information furnished by Jon Chandler, Oregon Building Industry Association.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America urges you to vote "NO" on Measure 64. The Association is a national organization dedicated to promoting high professional and ethical standards in the management of forest lands. We find Measure 64 to be contrary to the prudent practice of forestry for the following reasons:

Measure 64 actually is a ban on almost all timber harvest methods, not just clearcutting. The measure's definition of clearcutting is so broad that methods such as shelterwood, group selection, sanitation salvage, and in many cases, thinning would be prohibited. These techniques all allow sunlight to reach the forest floor so that tree species with high light requirements, such as Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, can reproduce. In addition, they often are used to slow insect and disease infestations. The ban will result in a severe decline in the health and productivity of Oregon's forests.

Measure 64 bans sound forest management practices that maintain forest health and productivity. Under this measure, for example, proven, safe chemical pesticides could not be used in Oregon's forests, even in an emergency. Farmers and homeowners use these tools to control damaging pests. However, Measure 64 would ban their use on forest lands to control outbreaks of harmful insects or to control weeds that compete with tree seedlings.

Measure 64 will stifle investment in forestry. The inability to use techniques that allow for growth of new trees and that control harmful insects and diseases will reduce incentive to invest in forestry. About 37 percent of Oregon's forest lands are privately owned. Of the private land, about one third is managed by small, non-industrial landowners. Without the prospect of adequate future returns, private owners will be unable to fund practices that protect and renew the forest.

As professional foresters, our goal is to safeguard the long-term productivity of Oregon's forests. Measure 64 will do just the opposite.

(This information furnished by Jerry Witler, Oregon Chapter, Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Inc.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Doug Caffall, President and CEO, Caffall Brothers Forest Products

President, Pacific Rim Trade Association

Rolf Glerum, Executive Director, Pacific Rim Trade Association

Pacific Rim Trade Association is a Portland-based organization whose members are engaged in the export of forest products and agricultural commodities to the Pacific Rim. Our membership includes large and small timber companies, tree farmers, stevedoring and towboat operations, shipping companies, labor unions and other entities related to this vital segment of Oregon's economy.

So what is a trade association doing speaking out in opposition to Ballot Measure 64?

Oregonians are fair-minded people. We have a well-deserved reputation nationwide for our practical, middle-of-the-road approach to business and politics, healthcare and education, the environment and the workplace, and most other activities that involve our people.

Any reasonable person would have to agree that Ballot Measure 64 is simply not fair.

We'll leave it up to others more closely aligned with the timber industry to argue the more technical aspects of this measure. We would like, instead, to focus on two extremely important, but easily overlooked, provisions of Ballot Measure 64, and show how grossly unfair these provisions are.

1. Private landowners would lose the right to manage their property for the greatest good. No tree farmer in his right mind would intentionally injure, abuse or neglect the trees he harvests to make a living. The healthier they are when they are cut, the higher price they will command, and the more likely it will be that the farmer will replant and reinvest for the future. Measure 64 would dictate almost completely how a privately owned forest is to be managed. This is simply not fair.

2. Oregon tree farmers can be sued by any other person in the U.S. to enforce this measure, and not have to risk paying attorney fees -- even if he or she loses...but those sued can't recover the costs of defending themselves -- even when they win the case. This is simply not fair.

PLEASE JOIN US AND OTHER FAIR-MINDED OREGONIANS IN VOTING NO ON BALLOT MEASURE 64.

Pacific Rim Trade Association

526 NW Marlborough

Portland, OR 97210

(503) 241-4259

Rolf Glerum, Ex. Dir.

(This information furnished by Doug Caffall, President, Rolf Glerum, Executive Director; Pacific Rim Trade Association.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Measure 64 is an initiative that prohibits most forest practices and goes well beyond banning clear-cutting. Its severe restrictions on the number of trees harvested, ban on removing trees over 30'', and lawsuit provision are bad for the environment and bad for Oregon's economy. On private lands in Oregon, about 8 billion board feet are over 30''. Trees in this category are valued at $4 billion dollars, an appalling loss for private timber owners. Under 64, only 16% of the total non-federal timberland in eastern Oregon would be available for harvest. In western Oregon, about 24% would be available. Its passage will further reduce state and local government revenue, costing them a loss of $75 million/year, when county offices are already burdened with reduced staffs and shortened hours. Measure 64 goes far beyond banning what one normally thinks of as a clear-cut. By its definition, a clear-cut is any harvest in eastern Oregon that leaves fewer than 60 trees that measure 10'' on any acre. In some eastern Oregon sites, timbered stands in this condition would actually be overstocked. It bans the use of all pesticides. No matter how dreadful the insect infestation, no use of pesticides would be allowed. Under Measure 64, anyone, living anywhere, could sue a timberland owner and risk nothing. Even if the claimant loses, he/she will not have to pay attorney or court fees. The landowner risks everything and cannot recover the cost of defending themselves, even if they win the case.

Not many people like the look of a recent clear-cut, but Measure 64 goes far beyond banning them. The size of clear-cuts is already regulated by the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and re-planting is required within two years. Measure 64 will harm the health of our forests and valued resources such as fish, wildlife habitat, and water quality. Thousands of Oregonians will lose their jobs if this measure passes, resulting in even higher unemployment in rural areas. Vote No on 64.

PAID FOR BY WALLOWA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

PO BOX 427

ENTERPRISE, OR 97828

(This information furnished by Eve Sheehy, Wallowa County Chamber of Commerce.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

"In the first place, then, men should guard against the beginning of change, and in the second place they should not rely upon the political devices invented only to deceive the people, for they are proved by experience to be useless."

Aristotle, POLITICS, circa 320 b.c.

It has long been my observation that the best silviculture mimics natures as closely as possible. Thousands of acres of planted forests are indistinguishable in appearance, structure and composition from natural forest.

For the past decade in Western Oregon, we have been using what are called new forestry techniques. In a typical clearcut plenty of defective trees, snags and rotting logs remain for wildlife habitat.

One of the most objectionable results of a ban on clearcutting would be the adverse effects it would have on wildlife habitat. According to the requirements of this deceptive proposal, which is actually an attempt to stop all logging, only a small percentage of a stand would be eligible for harvest.

In fact, on a typical second growth stand, a forester would probably be able to make only one entry. On some stands no entry would be permitted, perhaps forever.

On those stands that could be entered, forest managers would have to partially cut 10 times the area of a single clearcut to get the same volume of timber. The first trees cut would be the defective trees, snags, windfalls and the suppressed trees. In effect, managers would be forced to remove all the best wildlife habitat, only from a much larger area.

Whereas on a clearcut, the best wildlife habitat is retained as an essential part of the composition of the new forest.

Robert Mahaffy

1987 Oregon Tree Farmer of the Year

(This information furnished by Robert Mahaffy.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Vote "No" on Measure 64

Oregon has the strongest Forest Practice Act of any place in the World! To commercially cut even one tree. . . you must get a permit from the State Forester. . . you will need that permit number when you sell that tree. . . you are required to do everything according to regulations. One of the strongest rules is, " it must be replanted" within two years. The State Forester monitors and enforces these rules. The slanderous charges about "cut and run" have no been true for many years now.

Douglas fir is the finest framing lumber in the world. It is the most desirable and brings a higher price than most other wood. Oregon is the best place in the world to grow Douglas fir. Douglas fir will not grow in the shade of other trees. Clear cutting is a vital tool in managing Douglas fir. We can grow a good merchantable crop of Douglas fir in 40 to 70 years, depending on the site. This is a very short time in the history of the world. Very much of our timber growing land is not suited for anything else.

The very base core of our economy starts with the "land" and what the "land" produces. . . agriculture, farming, cattle, mining, and timber. As valuable as "tees" are, it is the "land" that is forever. How we "manage" that land to "produce" is vital to our economy. The federal government owns or controls over 50% of Oregon land. The State of Oregon owns another 5% of Oregon. That means that less than 40% of Oregon is private property. With the Federal lands "producing" very little toward our economy, and the State lands cutting way back on their support of our economy, we are relying far more on private property. . . or if you will. . . 40% of our land to provide revenue enough to run Oregon ! This measure will be a death blow to private land owners who are managing timber growth.

Now. . . I am 71 years old. . . and no matter what you do, I earned enough from managing timber to live on until I die. But you young people out there. . . this is your future. How are you going to make a living? You are the ones who should be hostile! Get out there and vote!

Dan Kirkpatrick

4880 Shinglehouse Road

Coos Bay, Oregon 97420

(This information furnished by Dan Kirkpatrick.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 64

Measure 64 is wrong for Oregon. Claiming to restrict clearcutting and the use of herbicides and pesticides on forestlands, Measure 64 is really about taking away landowner rights and stopping timber harvesting on private lands. Measure 64:

Measure 64 takes forest management out of the hands of private landowners and professional foresters and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats. Brush and noxious weeds could not be cleared with herbicides. Logging slash could not be burned on site. Dead, damaged and diseased tress could not be harvested. These
factors increase the danger of forest fires and contribute to an overall decline in forest health. Keep the management of Oregon's forest where it belongs, in the hands of the landowners and professional foresters. Vote no on Measure 64.

James Todd, Resource Manager

Woodward Companies, Prineville, Oregon

(This information furnished by James Todd, Resource Manager, Woodward Companies, Prineville, Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Stan Bunn and Margaret Carter

Measure 64 would hurt Oregon's public schools.

Timber harvests and forest land taxes supply more than $125 million a year for Oregon local governments and schools. This measure risks cutting that revenue in half.

According to the official Estimate of Financial Impact from the Office of the Secretary of State, revenues to schools are estimated to decrease by more than $33 million per year. Additionally, revenues that contribute to the Common School Fund would be reduced by $8.7 million.

Our top priority is working to ensure that every public school student in Oregon has access to a top quality education. We cannot support a measure that cuts millions in funding for schools at a time when we are committed to raising academic standards.

####

(This information furnished by Representative Margaret Carter and Stan Bunn.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.