/-editorial->
EPA ruling will help
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling
that the state of Oregon is in violation of federal clean air
standards because of the large amount of open field burn
ing performed in the Willamette Valley may well give the
anti-field burning forces more strength. But it probably
won’t force the state to bum the 50,000 acres or less
prescribed by the 1975 legislature and approved by the
EPA.
The 1977 legislature’s escalation of field burning to
180,000 acres for next year has been contested by the city
of Eugene, which sought the ruling on the 1977 burning
from the EPA.
The ruling calls for the development of a relatively
vague plan, saying that “all reasonable measures will be
taken in 1978 to alleviate the particulate problem in the
Willamette Valley.” The acreage limitation for 1978 may be
lowered to compromise the state’s legislation with the city’s
demands and the EPA’s regulations. In addition, the state
may have to develop a more comprehensive smoke man
agement plan, which will have to be approved by the
EPA.
If the EPA rejects the burning plan, the issue will
probably be resolved in the courts.
After this summer, the field burning issue will likely be
fought out again in the 1979 legislative session. The anti
field burning forces will be armed with an EPA ruling that
will undoubtedly put pressure on the legislature to further
limit field burning.
Generally speaking, the anti-field burning people are
comprised by environmentalists who see the annual field
burning as a blight on the environment, and Eugene indus
trialists wno are stymied in expansion plans because field
burning smoke takes up too large a percentage of the
Eugene area airshed during the late summer months.
The Eugene industry interest group and the seed in
dustry interest group, who essentially compete for air to
foul, gather every other year at the legislature to do battle.
Last year, the field burners came out on top. Next year, the
anti-field burners may be able to bring the EPA ruling to
bear against the field burners.
We oppose field burning on environmental grounds.
Anyone who has travelled up the Willamette Valley during
August knows that the smoke produced by field burning is
a blight on the face of Oregon. Field burning is the worst
case of neglect of the environment in this state. In spite of
the fact that industries in Eugene are trying to limit field
burning so that they can expand, it is true that industries
here have done far more than the field burners to limit their
pollution. A bright day it was, for example, when the “wig
wam” slash burners were outlawed. It has been a sincere
effort on industry’s part — an effort the seed industry has
failed to follow.
V.
I GAVE UP LETTUCE
AND GRAPES IN
SUPPORT
OF THE
UFW
TO HELP SAVE THE
WHALES, [ SOLD
PAY JAPANESE
CAR, MY
WATCH, AND
Mr
'STEREO
GAVE UP MY
FAVORITE CANDY BAR
TO PROTEST
EXPLOITATION
OF THIRD
WORLD BABIES
I. SOLD MY BLUE-CHIP
STOCKS TO HELP THE
STRUGGLING PEOPLE
THEN I FOUND OUT
EWEB OWNS PART
OF THE TROJAN
foSy NUCLEAR
\j£Jmenace
GEE, ITS GOOD TO HA VE
A CLEAR CONSCIENCEl
0 0
Page 4 Section A
‘Think before you squeak’
Submitted by
Joe Calhoun, ASOCE
Administrative Officer
As a member of the Student Government of
Oregon College of Education, (ASOCE) I would like
to interject my reflections both with the demon
strators who in a purely token gesture took over the
office of Chancellor Lieuallen and the student meet
ing with the OSBHE (Oregon State Board of Higher
Education). The demonstration did, as the Daily
Emerald editorial stated, “accomplish nothing”. The
^omment pertaining to being misdirected is an un
derstatement. The term misrepresentation would be
more appropriate. Perhaps the students of the Uni
versity of Oregon should investigate how many so
called University students actually participated in the
take over of the Chancellor’s office.
On the campus of OCE, we call these dormant
supporters of ideal human causes “Kickbacks ”. I
apologize for the fact that these humanitarians do not
have their own little world of the 1960s in which they
can play Robin Hood, El Cid, and Gerald Ford all
rolled into one.
How many “enraged philanthropic students"
would be willing to give up the products sold by
companies with interests in South Africa? How many
“students” have any idea at all as to what companies
maintain these interests? Who is willing to give up
their General Electric hair dryer, IBM typewriter,
Johnson and Johnson baby shampoo, 3M toilet
paper, wonderous Xerox copies, Kodak film and
supplies, Exxon credit card, and all the food har
vested by John Deere farm machinery? We should
think of being honest along with idealistic and not
play the game of “do as I say, not as I do”.
The one chance that the students had which
enabled them to freely discuss in an open meeting
all their problems, complaints, and ideas turned into
a farce as only four of University of Oregon’s stu
dents out of a fairly large campus population showed
up for the meeting. The demonstrators proved their
ignorance in their demonstrations and the University
of Oregon students displayed their ever famous
apathy by not showing up to a function created to
help them.
Maybe next time certain people involved should
think before they squeak. And as for the “State
Bored", as one student named them, I have never
worked with a group of people as responsive and
interested in students as the Oregon State Board of
Higher Education. The members are intelligent peo
ple who will discuss any and all subjects that are
sensibly presented. As for the student brigade, my
personal advice is as William Shakespeare would
put it “Pulleth Out Thy Headeth”.
LTD left out
We read with interest your re
cent editorial (“Another bad park
ing plan”, 1/25/78) and are
pleased to propose some alterna
tives, not only to "parking in Glen
wood and hitchhiking”, but to the
costs incurred when students
commute to the University of
Oregon for classes each week
day.
Specifically, those alternatives
include the #5 VIDA, the #10
HAYDEN BRIDGE via U of O, the
#12 U of O, #20 THURSTON via
U of O, and the U of O Extras. But
wait, there’s more! Lane Transit
District bus routes are designed to
allow timed transfers in a variety of
locations, meaning that all roads
can lead to the University.
Think of it. No more long walks
—Letters
to and from a parking meter or
restricted zone. A significant re
duction in the frequency with
which you encounter gas price in
creases, oil cans, antifreeze,
spark plugs, valve jobs, transmis
sions, parking permits, insurance
premiums (check with your agent,
you may be in line for a discount
when using the bus), parking tick
ets, depreciation ... need we go
on?
In all seriousness, Lane Transit
District is currently used by hun
dreds of University students.
Buses are clean, economical,
energy efficient, operated by driv
ers with years of experience and a
smile for their riders, and, judging
by the phone calls we have re
ceived, they’re acceptable to the
South University Neighborhood
Association.
We can understand your un
happiness with parking problems
encountered around campus, and
with the cost of commuting — but
didn't we even merit a mention?
Gee Wally, say it isn’t so.
Rosemary Ross
Marketing Director,
Lane Transit District
Wasted space
What a waste of space!
Wednesday's article on Ray
Byers, the Ducks’ mascot, was the
most blatant waste of paper I have
seen in four years at this Univer
sity. I've always thought that the
biggest waste of wood pulp hu
mans had devised was toilet
paper, until I read Wednesday's
article.
If I were an Emerald advertiser,
I would demand an apology and a
refund. Also, writing a joke and
trying to pass it off as something
interesting and newsworthy to col
lege students is a great injustice
I’m a reasonable person and I’m
only asking for a couple of breaks.
Please Emerald, no more trash in
the sports page. And do us a favor
Ray, wear your head all the time.
Quack! Quack!
Jack Fields
Senior, Journalism/
Political Science
The Emerald will accept
and try to print all letters and
opinion columns containing
fair comment on ideas and
topics of concern or interest
to the University commun
ity. Letters and opinions will
be run on a first-come,
first-served basis. Both let
ters and opinion columns
must be typewritten, using
65 character margins, and
should be triple-spaced.
Letters and opinions must
be signed and the author’s
field of study (or faculty
status) noted.