LET TERS
GROSS DISREGARD
As I read Bill Fleenor’s letter in last
week’s EW [5/1], I was returned to the same
enraged state as 2012, when the politicians
unnecessarily redistricted Lane County
through the passage of Ordinance 9-11.
This gerrymandering was accomplished
despite overwhelming opposition through
public comment of the scenario that was
chosen. I was part of a group opposed to
this gerrymandering, and we tried to gather
signatures to put this issue on the ballot.
We were denied a petition number by the
county clerk, at the direction of the County
Commissioners Jay Bozievich, Sid Leiken
and Faye Stewart. They claimed that this
gerrymandering was an administrative
rather than a legislative decision, and thus
not subject to a referendum.
The lack of a petition number meant that
we could not gather signatures to put this issue
on the May 2013 ballot. Although we took this
issue to court, the county delayed matters long
enough that the suit was eventually mooted
(dismissed) due to the fact that more time
had passed since the date of the ordinance
than was allowed by law. The law allows no
extensions, even when a suit has been fi led.
VIEWPOINT
What this whole thing means is that
the conservative commissioners believe
they can do anything they please in Lane
County, and by denying a referendum,
avoid any possibility of the voters rejecting
their actions. I urge all voters to vote
against Commissioners Bozievich, Leiken
and Stewart to punish them for their gross
disregard of the will of their constituents.
Duncan Rhodes
Eugene
ALREADY COMPROMISED
Bob Warren’s Viewpoint (4/24)
looking back at two memos from 1991
ignores an important piece of the puzzle
that should have informed his conclusion
that environmentalists are missing the
opportunity to compromise in the current
round of pro-logging legislation in
Congress. That missing piece: Our forest
ecosystems and fi sh and wildlife habitat
were logged nearly to extinction leading
up to the early 1990s.
The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, now
20 years old, was a huge compromise by
environmental interests — it set aside
some areas for protecting and restoring
A POSITIVE FUTURE
After following the Lane County
commissioners’ actions for the last few
years, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the
bias towards the clearcut logging and
mining industries that Faye Stewart and
Jay Bozievich have promoted. Here in
Dexter we had absolutely no help from
those two commissioners to stop the
destruction of Parvin Butte by a gravel
mining operation in the heart of our
community. Marc Kardell, the county
attorney, and Commissioners Rob Handy
and Pete Sorenson spoke out for us and the
need to change the fl awed land use laws
that allowed this injustice to take place.
The push to clear-cut 1.6 million acres of
public forests on O&C lands is absolutely
the opposite direction we should be going
in light of climate change and species
extinction. Deforestation is the second-
biggest cause of global warming. There are
sustainable methods of logging that create
profi t and maintain healthy forests.
The shady tactic of gerrymandering
voting districts has also shown their true
colors. There are many alternatives to
create revenue and jobs in Lane County
that do not contribute to the harm of
future generations. We need to elect Kevin
Matthews and Dawn Lesley and work
toward a positive future.
Pam Driscoll
Dexter
BY NIRIA A GA RCIA
Pesticide Drift
BAD FOREST PRACTICES CROSS CULTURAL LINES
A
s an environmental studies major at the UO I’ve gotten very used
to discussing issues of injustice and land degradation through
a scholarly/ objective lens;
however, I had never drawn
these connections back to myself
and how they affect me as an Oregonian. Never
would I have imagined that a trip out to interview
a community affected by pesticide drift — a
predominantly middle class, white conservative
community in Gold Beach — would connect
directly to the working-class Latino-immigrant
farmer community I grew up with in the Rogue
Valley.
“What does this have to do with me?” were
the exact thoughts going through my head on
the drive down to Gold Beach. Convinced of
my disconnection, I was reluctant to feel a sense
of investment or commitment to this issue.
My thinking began to change during our fi rst
interview with Kathyrn and Erik Rickard, both
Gold Beach property owners who believe their
dog’s wasting disease, along with their recently
emerging health issues, are directly linked to the
sprays.
When we interviewed Kathryn about why
she decided to take action to stop aerial pesticide
spray, she truthfully responded, “to be perfectly
honest, I didn’t want to pick this up … I was just going along with my life and just
didn’t want anything extra.” She went on to elaborate on the overbearing demands
of everyday life as a mother, wife, student and medical transcriptionist. It wasn’t
until she began fi ghting for her own health, along with that of her dog, that she
4
old-growth forest habitat devastated by
logging while allowing continued logging
in other areas, including mature and old-
growth forests. Since the plan was put in
place, logging of public lands in Oregon
has continued to generate nearly 400
million board feet a year (on average) to
the timber industry. Much of this has been
thinning in young, managed plantations
that most environmentalists don’t oppose.
Hardly a zero-cut position, and generally a
win-win for our forests and economy.
In the current push to up logging on
our public lands, it’s simply inaccurate
to describe the environmental position as
being unwilling to compromise. The fact is
our forests, clean water and wildlife can’t
afford any more political compromise.
Chandra LeGue
Western Oregon Field Coordinator
Oregon Wild
May 8, 2014 • eugeneweekly.com
found herself doing battle at the intersection of bad pesticide policies and public
health rights.
I still wondered, “What does the struggle of property-owning, white community
have to do with my own struggle coming from an immigrant Latino community in
southern Oregon?” The tipping point for my paradigm shift was when, that afternoon,
we interviewed James, a logger who for decades has worked for the forestry
company that was spraying timber that day. James was perhaps the most affected
by the sprays and as a result must now take dangerously potent drugs everyday to
combat paralysis. He, like his neighbors, is pro-timber but against aerial pesticide
sprays because of the threat to his community.
Pinned between fi ghting for his own health
versus fi ghting for the industry from which he
makes his livelihood, it was in that moment that
in James, I saw the refl ection of my dad, brother
and community members who, for decades
have worked for the forestry industry as well.
This led me to wonder if these folks who
have felt the effects of drift are suffering these
severe symptoms and economic losses, what
about the people who go into these sprayed
areas to work and replant trees? Who is doing
this work and what are they experiencing? At
this point I found myself hearing two parallel
narratives that might not yet be connected
due to cultural and linguistic barriers. Had I
never taken this trip I would have probably
continued to perceive the struggle of this
coastal community as a separate issue from
that of the Latino community I grew up in.
The long drive back to Eugene with my
fellow UO students was partly sunny but
mostly rainy, and as I looked at the rain I
thought about the water cycle. Could it be that
the rain shooting down onto our windshield
could once have been the same water that fell down onto those forestlands and
carried with them the pesticides that contaminated the wells that made the Cedar
Valley people and my relatives sick?
Niria A Garcia of Eugene is an environmental studies major at the University of Oregon.